nhyatt/putty-source
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.tartarus.org/simon/putty.git synced 2025-01-10 01:48:00 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
6ecc16fc4b
putty-source/test/testcrypt.py

233 lines
8.5 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
import sys
import os
import numbers
import subprocess
import re
testcrypt / cryptsuite: another set of Python 3 fixes. One of these days I'll manage not to mess this up in every new test I add ... perhaps.
2019-01-23 23:40:32 +00:00
import struct
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
from binascii import hexlify
# Expect to be run from the 'test' subdirectory, one level down from
# the main source
putty_srcdir = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)))
def unicode_to_bytes(arg):
# Slightly fiddly way to do this which should work in Python 2 and 3
if isinstance(arg, type(u'a')) and not isinstance(arg, type(b'a')):
arg = arg.encode("UTF-8")
return arg
testcrypt / cryptsuite: another set of Python 3 fixes. One of these days I'll manage not to mess this up in every new test I add ... perhaps.
2019-01-23 23:40:32 +00:00
def bytevals(b):
return struct.unpack("{:d}B".format(len(b)), b)
def valbytes(b):
b = list(b)
return struct.pack("{:d}B".format(len(b)), *b)
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
class ChildProcess(object):
def __init__(self):
self.sp = None
self.debug = None
cryptsuite: clean up exit handling. Now we only run the final memory-leak check if we didn't already have some other error to report, or some other exception that terminated the process. Also, we wait for the subprocess to terminate before returning control to the shell, so that any last-minute complaints from Leak Sanitiser appear before rather than after the shell prompt comes back. While I'm here, I've also made check_return_status tolerate the case in which the child process never got started at all. That way, if a failure manages to occur before even getting _that_ far, there won't be a cascade failure from check_return_status getting confused afterwards.
2019-03-24 09:56:57 +00:00
self.exitstatus = None
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
dbg = os.environ.get("PUTTY_TESTCRYPT_DEBUG")
if dbg is not None:
if dbg == "stderr":
self.debug = sys.stderr
else:
sys.stderr.write("Unknown value '{}' for PUTTY_TESTCRYPT_DEBUG"
" (try 'stderr'\n")
def start(self):
assert self.sp is None
override_command = os.environ.get("PUTTY_TESTCRYPT")
if override_command is None:
cmd = [os.path.join(putty_srcdir, "testcrypt")]
shell = False
else:
cmd = override_command
shell = True
self.sp = subprocess.Popen(
cmd, shell=shell, stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
def write_line(self, line):
if self.debug is not None:
self.debug.write("send: {}\n".format(line))
self.sp.stdin.write(line + b"\n")
self.sp.stdin.flush()
def read_line(self):
line = self.sp.stdout.readline().rstrip(b"\r\n")
if self.debug is not None:
self.debug.write("recv: {}\n".format(line))
return line
def funcall(self, cmd, args):
if self.sp is None:
self.start()
self.write_line(unicode_to_bytes(cmd) + b" " + b" ".join(
unicode_to_bytes(arg) for arg in args))
argcount = int(self.read_line())
return [self.read_line() for arg in range(argcount)]
cryptsuite: clean up exit handling. Now we only run the final memory-leak check if we didn't already have some other error to report, or some other exception that terminated the process. Also, we wait for the subprocess to terminate before returning control to the shell, so that any last-minute complaints from Leak Sanitiser appear before rather than after the shell prompt comes back. While I'm here, I've also made check_return_status tolerate the case in which the child process never got started at all. That way, if a failure manages to occur before even getting _that_ far, there won't be a cascade failure from check_return_status getting confused afterwards.
2019-03-24 09:56:57 +00:00
def wait_for_exit(self):
if self.sp is not None:
self.sp.stdin.close()
self.exitstatus = self.sp.wait()
self.sp = None
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
def check_return_status(self):
cryptsuite: clean up exit handling. Now we only run the final memory-leak check if we didn't already have some other error to report, or some other exception that terminated the process. Also, we wait for the subprocess to terminate before returning control to the shell, so that any last-minute complaints from Leak Sanitiser appear before rather than after the shell prompt comes back. While I'm here, I've also made check_return_status tolerate the case in which the child process never got started at all. That way, if a failure manages to occur before even getting _that_ far, there won't be a cascade failure from check_return_status getting confused afterwards.
2019-03-24 09:56:57 +00:00
self.wait_for_exit()
if self.exitstatus is not None and self.exitstatus != 0:
raise Exception("testcrypt returned exit status {}"
.format(self.exitstatus))
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
childprocess = ChildProcess()
class Value(object):
def __init__(self, typename, ident):
self.typename = typename
self.ident = ident
def consumed(self):
self.ident = None
def __repr__(self):
return "Value({!r}, {!r})".format(self.typename, self.ident)
def __del__(self):
if self.ident is not None:
childprocess.funcall("free", [self.ident])
def __long__(self):
if self.typename != "val_mpint":
raise TypeError("testcrypt values of types other than mpint"
" cannot be converted to integer")
hexval = childprocess.funcall("mp_dump", [self.ident])[0]
return 0 if len(hexval) == 0 else int(hexval, 16)
def __int__(self):
return int(self.__long__())
def make_argword(arg, argtype, fnname, argindex, to_preserve):
typename, consumed = argtype
if typename.startswith("opt_"):
if arg is None:
return "NULL"
typename = typename[4:]
if typename == "val_string":
arg = unicode_to_bytes(arg)
if isinstance(arg, bytes):
retwords = childprocess.funcall(
"newstring", ["".join("%{:02x}".format(b)
for b in bytevals(arg))])
arg = make_retvals([typename], retwords, unpack_strings=False)[0]
to_preserve.append(arg)
if typename == "val_mpint" and isinstance(arg, numbers.Integral):
retwords = childprocess.funcall("mp_literal", ["0x{:x}".format(arg)])
arg = make_retvals([typename], retwords)[0]
to_preserve.append(arg)
if isinstance(arg, Value):
if arg.typename != typename:
raise TypeError(
"{}() argument {:d} should be {} ({} given)".format(
fnname, argindex, typename, arg.typename))
ident = arg.ident
if consumed:
arg.consumed()
return ident
if typename == "uint" and isinstance(arg, numbers.Integral):
return "0x{:x}".format(arg)
if typename in {
Merge the ssh1_cipher type into ssh2_cipher. The aim of this reorganisation is to make it easier to test all the ciphers in PuTTY in a uniform way. It was inconvenient that there were two separate vtable systems for the ciphers used in SSH-1 and SSH-2 with different functionality. Now there's only one type, called ssh_cipher. But really it's the old ssh2_cipher, just renamed: I haven't made any changes to the API on the SSH-2 side. Instead, I've removed ssh1_cipher completely, and adapted the SSH-1 BPP to use the SSH-2 style API. (The relevant differences are that ssh1_cipher encapsulated both the sending and receiving directions in one object - so now ssh1bpp has to make a separate cipher instance per direction - and that ssh1_cipher automatically initialised the IV to all zeroes, which ssh1bpp now has to do by hand.) The previous ssh1_cipher vtable for single-DES has been removed completely, because when converted into the new API it became identical to the SSH-2 single-DES vtable; so now there's just one vtable for DES-CBC which works in both protocols. The other two SSH-1 ciphers each had to stay separate, because 3DES is completely different between SSH-1 and SSH-2 (three layers of CBC structure versus one), and Blowfish varies in endianness and key length between the two. (Actually, while I'm here, I've only just noticed that the SSH-1 Blowfish cipher mis-describes itself in log messages as Blowfish-128. In fact it passes the whole of the input key buffer, which has length SSH1_SESSION_KEY_LENGTH == 32 bytes == 256 bits. So it's actually Blowfish-256, and has been all along!)
2019-01-17 18:06:08 +00:00
"hashalg", "macalg", "keyalg", "cipheralg",
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
"dh_group", "ecdh_alg", "rsaorder"}:
arg = unicode_to_bytes(arg)
if isinstance(arg, bytes) and b" " not in arg:
return arg
raise TypeError(
"Can't convert {}() argument {:d} to {} (value was {!r})".format(
fnname, argindex, typename, arg))
def make_retval(rettype, word, unpack_strings):
testcrypt: allow ssh2_cipher_new to return NULL. No cipher construction function _currently_ returns NULL, but one's about to start, so the testcrypt system will have to be able to cope. This is the first time a function in the testcrypt API has had an 'opt' type as its return value rather than an argument. But it works just the same in reverse: the wire protocol emits the special identifer "NULL" when the optional return value is absent, and the Python module catches that and rewrites it as Python 'None'.
2019-01-11 06:47:39 +00:00
if rettype.startswith("opt_"):
testcrypt / cryptsuite: another set of Python 3 fixes. One of these days I'll manage not to mess this up in every new test I add ... perhaps.
2019-01-23 23:40:32 +00:00
if word == b"NULL":
testcrypt: allow ssh2_cipher_new to return NULL. No cipher construction function _currently_ returns NULL, but one's about to start, so the testcrypt system will have to be able to cope. This is the first time a function in the testcrypt API has had an 'opt' type as its return value rather than an argument. But it works just the same in reverse: the wire protocol emits the special identifer "NULL" when the optional return value is absent, and the Python module catches that and rewrites it as Python 'None'.
2019-01-11 06:47:39 +00:00
return None
rettype = rettype[4:]
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
if rettype == "val_string" and unpack_strings:
retwords = childprocess.funcall("getstring", [word])
childprocess.funcall("free", [word])
return re.sub(b"%[0-9A-F][0-9A-F]",
testcrypt / cryptsuite: another set of Python 3 fixes. One of these days I'll manage not to mess this up in every new test I add ... perhaps.
2019-01-23 23:40:32 +00:00
lambda m: valbytes([int(m.group(0)[1:], 16)]),
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
retwords[0])
if rettype.startswith("val_"):
return Value(rettype, word)
elif rettype == "uint":
return int(word, 0)
elif rettype == "boolean":
assert word == b"true" or word == b"false"
return word == b"true"
raise TypeError("Can't deal with return value {!r} of type {!r}"
.format(rettype, word))
def make_retvals(rettypes, retwords, unpack_strings=True):
assert len(rettypes) == len(retwords) # FIXME: better exception
return [make_retval(rettype, word, unpack_strings)
for rettype, word in zip(rettypes, retwords)]
class Function(object):
def __init__(self, fnname, rettypes, argtypes):
self.fnname = fnname
self.rettypes = rettypes
self.argtypes = argtypes
def __repr__(self):
return "<Function {}>".format(self.fnname)
def __call__(self, *args):
if len(args) != len(self.argtypes):
raise TypeError(
"{}() takes exactly {} arguments ({} given)".format(
self.fnname, len(self.argtypes), len(args)))
to_preserve = []
retwords = childprocess.funcall(
self.fnname, [make_argword(args[i], self.argtypes[i],
self.fnname, i, to_preserve)
for i in range(len(args))])
retvals = make_retvals(self.rettypes, retwords)
if len(retvals) == 0:
return None
if len(retvals) == 1:
return retvals[0]
return tuple(retvals)
def _setup(scope):
header_file = os.path.join(putty_srcdir, "testcrypt.h")
Build testcrypt on Windows. The bulk of this commit is the changes necessary to make testcrypt compile under Visual Studio. Unfortunately, I've had to remove my fiddly clever uses of C99 variadic macros, because Visual Studio does something unexpected when a variadic macro's expansion puts __VA_ARGS__ in the argument list of a further macro invocation: the commas don't separate further arguments. In other words, if you write #define INNER(x,y,z) some expansion involving x, y and z #define OUTER(...) INNER(__VA_ARGS__) OUTER(1,2,3) then gcc and clang will translate OUTER(1,2,3) into INNER(1,2,3) in the obvious way, and the inner macro will be expanded with x=1, y=2 and z=3. But try this in Visual Studio, and you'll get the macro parameter x expanding to the entire string 1,2,3 and the other two empty (with warnings complaining that INNER didn't get the number of arguments it expected). It's hard to cite chapter and verse of the standard to say which of those is _definitely_ right, though my reading leans towards the gcc/clang behaviour. But I do know I can't depend on it in code that has to compile under both! So I've removed the system that allowed me to declare everything in testcrypt.h as FUNC(ret,fn,arg,arg,arg), and now I have to use a different macro for each arity (FUNC0, FUNC1, FUNC2 etc). Also, the WRAPPED_NAME system is gone (because that too depended on the use of a comma to shift macro arguments along by one), and now I put a custom C wrapper around a function by simply re-#defining that function's own name (and therefore the subsequent code has to be a little more careful to _not_ pass functions' names between several macros before stringifying them). That's all a bit tedious, and commits me to a small amount of ongoing annoyance because now I'll have to add an explicit argument count every time I add something to testcrypt.h. But then again, perhaps it will make the code less incomprehensible to someone trying to understand it!
2019-01-11 06:25:28 +00:00
linere = re.compile(r'^FUNC\d+\((.*)\)$')
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
valprefix = "val_"
outprefix = "out_"
testcrypt.py: look past 'opt_' prefix on argument types. When testcrypt.h lists a function argument as 'opt_val_foo', it means that the argument is optional in the sense that the C function can take a null pointer in place of a valid foo, and so the Python wrapper module should accept None in the corresponding argument slot from the client code and translate it into the special string "NULL" in the wire protocol. This works fine at argument translation time, but the code that reads testcrypt.h wasn't looking at it, so if you said 'opt_val_foo_suffix' in place of 'opt_val_foo' (indicating that that argument is optional _and_ the C function expects it in a translated form), then the initial pass over testcrypt.h wouldn't strip the _suffix, and would set up data structures with mismatched type names.
2019-01-10 19:21:33 +00:00
optprefix = "opt_"
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
consprefix = "consumed_"
def trim_argtype(arg):
testcrypt.py: look past 'opt_' prefix on argument types. When testcrypt.h lists a function argument as 'opt_val_foo', it means that the argument is optional in the sense that the C function can take a null pointer in place of a valid foo, and so the Python wrapper module should accept None in the corresponding argument slot from the client code and translate it into the special string "NULL" in the wire protocol. This works fine at argument translation time, but the code that reads testcrypt.h wasn't looking at it, so if you said 'opt_val_foo_suffix' in place of 'opt_val_foo' (indicating that that argument is optional _and_ the C function expects it in a translated form), then the initial pass over testcrypt.h wouldn't strip the _suffix, and would set up data structures with mismatched type names.
2019-01-10 19:21:33 +00:00
if arg.startswith(optprefix):
return optprefix + trim_argtype(arg[len(optprefix):])
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
if (arg.startswith(valprefix) and
"_" in arg[len(valprefix):]):
# Strip suffixes like val_string_asciz
arg = arg[:arg.index("_", len(valprefix))]
return arg
with open(header_file) as f:
for line in iter(f.readline, ""):
line = line.rstrip("\r\n").replace(" ", "")
Build testcrypt on Windows. The bulk of this commit is the changes necessary to make testcrypt compile under Visual Studio. Unfortunately, I've had to remove my fiddly clever uses of C99 variadic macros, because Visual Studio does something unexpected when a variadic macro's expansion puts __VA_ARGS__ in the argument list of a further macro invocation: the commas don't separate further arguments. In other words, if you write #define INNER(x,y,z) some expansion involving x, y and z #define OUTER(...) INNER(__VA_ARGS__) OUTER(1,2,3) then gcc and clang will translate OUTER(1,2,3) into INNER(1,2,3) in the obvious way, and the inner macro will be expanded with x=1, y=2 and z=3. But try this in Visual Studio, and you'll get the macro parameter x expanding to the entire string 1,2,3 and the other two empty (with warnings complaining that INNER didn't get the number of arguments it expected). It's hard to cite chapter and verse of the standard to say which of those is _definitely_ right, though my reading leans towards the gcc/clang behaviour. But I do know I can't depend on it in code that has to compile under both! So I've removed the system that allowed me to declare everything in testcrypt.h as FUNC(ret,fn,arg,arg,arg), and now I have to use a different macro for each arity (FUNC0, FUNC1, FUNC2 etc). Also, the WRAPPED_NAME system is gone (because that too depended on the use of a comma to shift macro arguments along by one), and now I put a custom C wrapper around a function by simply re-#defining that function's own name (and therefore the subsequent code has to be a little more careful to _not_ pass functions' names between several macros before stringifying them). That's all a bit tedious, and commits me to a small amount of ongoing annoyance because now I'll have to add an explicit argument count every time I add something to testcrypt.h. But then again, perhaps it will make the code less incomprehensible to someone trying to understand it!
2019-01-11 06:25:28 +00:00
m = linere.match(line)
if m is not None:
words = m.group(1).split(",")
New test system for mp_int and cryptography. I've written a new standalone test program which incorporates all of PuTTY's crypto code, including the mp_int and low-level elliptic curve layers but also going all the way up to the implementations of the MAC, hash, cipher, public key and kex abstractions. The test program itself, 'testcrypt', speaks a simple line-oriented protocol on standard I/O in which you write the name of a function call followed by some inputs, and it gives you back a list of outputs preceded by a line telling you how many there are. Dynamically allocated objects are assigned string ids in the protocol, and there's a 'free' function that tells testcrypt when it can dispose of one. It's possible to speak that protocol by hand, but cumbersome. I've also provided a Python module that wraps it, by running testcrypt as a persistent subprocess and gatewaying all the function calls into things that look reasonably natural to call from Python. The Python module and testcrypt.c both read a carefully formatted header file testcrypt.h which contains the name and signature of every exported function, so it costs minimal effort to expose a given function through this test API. In a few cases it's necessary to write a wrapper in testcrypt.c that makes the function look more friendly, but mostly you don't even need that. (Though that is one of the motivations between a lot of API cleanups I've done recently!) I considered doing Python integration in the more obvious way, by linking parts of the PuTTY code directly into a native-code .so Python module. I decided against it because this way is more flexible: I can run the testcrypt program on its own, or compile it in a way that Python wouldn't play nicely with (I bet compiling just that .so with Leak Sanitiser wouldn't do what you wanted when Python loaded it!), or attach a debugger to it. I can even recompile testcrypt for a different CPU architecture (32- vs 64-bit, or even running it on a different machine over ssh or under emulation) and still layer the nice API on top of that via the local Python interpreter. All I need is a bidirectional data channel.
2019-01-01 19:08:37 +00:00
function = words[1]
rettypes = []
argtypes = []
argsconsumed = []
if words[0] != "void":
rettypes.append(trim_argtype(words[0]))
for arg in words[2:]:
if arg.startswith(outprefix):
rettypes.append(trim_argtype(arg[len(outprefix):]))
else:
consumed = False
if arg.startswith(consprefix):
arg = arg[len(consprefix):]
consumed = True
arg = trim_argtype(arg)
argtypes.append((arg, consumed))
scope[function] = Function(function, rettypes, argtypes)
_setup(globals())
del _setup
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink