nhyatt/putty-source
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.tartarus.org/simon/putty.git synced 2025-01-09 17:38:00 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
f71dce662e
putty-source/testcrypt.h

229 lines
11 KiB
C
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
/*
* mpint.h functions.
*/
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
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_new, uint)
FUNC1(void, mp_clear, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_bytes_le, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_bytes_be, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_integer, uint)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_decimal_pl, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_decimal, val_string_asciz)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_hex_pl, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_from_hex, val_string_asciz)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_copy, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_power_2, uint)
FUNC2(uint, mp_get_byte, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC2(uint, mp_get_bit, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_set_bit, val_mpint, uint, uint)
FUNC1(uint, mp_max_bytes, val_mpint)
FUNC1(uint, mp_max_bits, val_mpint)
FUNC1(uint, mp_get_nbits, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_string_asciz, mp_get_decimal, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_string_asciz, mp_get_hex, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_string_asciz, mp_get_hex_uppercase, val_mpint)
FUNC2(uint, mp_cmp_hs, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(uint, mp_cmp_eq, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(uint, mp_hs_integer, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC2(uint, mp_eq_integer, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_min_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_min, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(void, mp_copy_into, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC4(void, mp_select_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_add_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(void, mp_sub_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(void, mp_mul_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_add, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_sub, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_mul, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(void, mp_add_integer_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_sub_integer_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_mul_integer_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC4(void, mp_cond_add_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC4(void, mp_cond_sub_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_cond_swap, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC2(void, mp_cond_clear, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC4(void, mp_divmod_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_div, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_mod, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(void, mp_reduce_mod_2to, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_invert_mod_2to, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_invert, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_modsqrt, modsqrt_new, val_mpint, val_mpint)
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
/* The modsqrt functions' 'success' pointer becomes a second return value */
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
FUNC3(val_mpint, mp_modsqrt, val_modsqrt, val_mpint, out_uint)
FUNC1(val_monty, monty_new, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_mpint, monty_modulus, val_monty)
FUNC1(val_mpint, monty_identity, val_monty)
FUNC3(void, monty_import_into, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, monty_import, val_monty, val_mpint)
FUNC3(void, monty_export_into, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, monty_export, val_monty, val_mpint)
FUNC4(void, monty_mul_into, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, monty_add, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, monty_sub, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, monty_mul, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, monty_pow, val_monty, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, monty_invert, val_monty, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, monty_modsqrt, val_modsqrt, val_mpint, out_uint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, mp_modpow, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, mp_modmul, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, mp_modadd, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mpint, mp_modsub, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_rshift_safe, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_lshift_fixed_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC3(void, mp_rshift_fixed_into, val_mpint, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_rshift_fixed, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC1(val_mpint, mp_random_bits, uint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, mp_random_in_range, val_mpint, val_mpint)
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
/*
* ecc.h functions.
*/
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
FUNC4(val_wcurve, ecc_weierstrass_curve, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint, opt_val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_point_new_identity, val_wcurve)
FUNC3(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_point_new, val_wcurve, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_point_new_from_x, val_wcurve, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC1(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_point_copy, val_wpoint)
FUNC1(uint, ecc_weierstrass_point_valid, val_wpoint)
FUNC2(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_add_general, val_wpoint, val_wpoint)
FUNC2(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_add, val_wpoint, val_wpoint)
FUNC1(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_double, val_wpoint)
FUNC2(val_wpoint, ecc_weierstrass_multiply, val_wpoint, val_mpint)
FUNC1(uint, ecc_weierstrass_is_identity, val_wpoint)
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
/* The output pointers in get_affine all become extra output values */
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
FUNC3(void, ecc_weierstrass_get_affine, val_wpoint, out_val_mpint, out_val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_mcurve, ecc_montgomery_curve, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpoint, ecc_montgomery_point_new, val_mcurve, val_mpint)
FUNC1(val_mpoint, ecc_montgomery_point_copy, val_mpoint)
FUNC3(val_mpoint, ecc_montgomery_diff_add, val_mpoint, val_mpoint, val_mpoint)
FUNC1(val_mpoint, ecc_montgomery_double, val_mpoint)
FUNC2(val_mpoint, ecc_montgomery_multiply, val_mpoint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(void, ecc_montgomery_get_affine, val_mpoint, out_val_mpint)
FUNC4(val_ecurve, ecc_edwards_curve, val_mpint, val_mpint, val_mpint, opt_val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_epoint, ecc_edwards_point_new, val_ecurve, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC3(val_epoint, ecc_edwards_point_new_from_y, val_ecurve, val_mpint, uint)
FUNC1(val_epoint, ecc_edwards_point_copy, val_epoint)
FUNC2(val_epoint, ecc_edwards_add, val_epoint, val_epoint)
FUNC2(val_epoint, ecc_edwards_multiply, val_epoint, val_mpint)
FUNC2(uint, ecc_edwards_eq, val_epoint, val_epoint)
FUNC3(void, ecc_edwards_get_affine, val_epoint, out_val_mpint, out_val_mpint)
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
/*
* The ssh_hash abstraction. Note the 'consumed', indicating that
* ssh_hash_final puts its input ssh_hash beyond use.
*
* ssh_hash_update is an invention of testcrypt, handled in the real C
* API by the hash object also functioning as a BinarySink.
*/
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
FUNC1(val_hash, ssh_hash_new, hashalg)
FUNC1(val_hash, ssh_hash_copy, val_hash)
FUNC1(val_string, ssh_hash_final, consumed_val_hash)
FUNC2(void, ssh_hash_update, val_hash, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* The ssh2_mac abstraction. Note the optional ssh2_cipher parameter
* to ssh2_mac_new. Also, again, I've invented an ssh2_mac_update so
* you can put data into the MAC.
*/
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
FUNC2(val_mac, ssh2_mac_new, macalg, opt_val_ssh2cipher)
FUNC2(void, ssh2_mac_setkey, val_mac, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(void, ssh2_mac_start, val_mac)
FUNC2(void, ssh2_mac_update, val_mac, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(val_string, ssh2_mac_genresult, val_mac)
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
/*
* The ssh_key abstraction. All the uses of BinarySink and
* BinarySource in parameters are replaced with ordinary strings for
* the testing API: new_priv_openssh just takes a string input, and
* all the functions that output key and signature blobs do it by
* returning a string.
*/
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
FUNC2(val_key, ssh_key_new_pub, keyalg, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC3(val_key, ssh_key_new_priv, keyalg, val_string_ptrlen, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(val_key, ssh_key_new_priv_openssh, keyalg, val_string_binarysource)
FUNC4(void, ssh_key_sign, val_key, val_string_ptrlen, uint, out_val_string_binarysink)
FUNC3(boolean, ssh_key_verify, val_key, val_string_ptrlen, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(void, ssh_key_public_blob, val_key, out_val_string_binarysink)
FUNC2(void, ssh_key_private_blob, val_key, out_val_string_binarysink)
FUNC2(void, ssh_key_openssh_blob, val_key, out_val_string_binarysink)
FUNC1(val_string_asciz, ssh_key_cache_str, val_key)
FUNC2(uint, ssh_key_public_bits, keyalg, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* The ssh1_cipher abstraction. The in-place encrypt and decrypt
* functions are wrapped to replace them with a pair that take one
* string and return a separate string.
*/
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
FUNC1(val_ssh1cipher, ssh1_cipher_new, ssh1_cipheralg)
FUNC2(void, ssh1_cipher_sesskey, val_ssh1cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(val_string, ssh1_cipher_encrypt, val_ssh1cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(val_string, ssh1_cipher_decrypt, val_ssh1cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* The ssh2_cipher abstraction, with similar modifications.
*/
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
FUNC1(opt_val_ssh2cipher, ssh2_cipher_new, ssh2_cipheralg)
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
FUNC2(void, ssh2_cipher_setiv, val_ssh2cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(void, ssh2_cipher_setkey, val_ssh2cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(val_string, ssh2_cipher_encrypt, val_ssh2cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(val_string, ssh2_cipher_decrypt, val_ssh2cipher, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC3(val_string, ssh2_cipher_encrypt_length, val_ssh2cipher, val_string_ptrlen, uint)
FUNC3(val_string, ssh2_cipher_decrypt_length, val_ssh2cipher, val_string_ptrlen, uint)
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
/*
* Integer Diffie-Hellman.
*/
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
FUNC1(val_dh, dh_setup_group, dh_group)
FUNC2(val_dh, dh_setup_gex, val_mpint, val_mpint)
FUNC1(uint, dh_modulus_bit_size, val_dh)
FUNC2(val_mpint, dh_create_e, val_dh, uint)
FUNC2(boolean, dh_validate_f, val_dh, val_mpint)
FUNC2(val_mpint, dh_find_K, val_dh, val_mpint)
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
/*
* Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman.
*/
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
FUNC1(val_ecdh, ssh_ecdhkex_newkey, ecdh_alg)
FUNC2(void, ssh_ecdhkex_getpublic, val_ecdh, out_val_string_binarysink)
FUNC2(val_mpint, ssh_ecdhkex_getkey, val_ecdh, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* RSA key exchange.
*/
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
FUNC1(val_rsakex, ssh_rsakex_newkey, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC1(uint, ssh_rsakex_klen, val_rsakex)
FUNC3(val_string, ssh_rsakex_encrypt, val_rsakex, hashalg, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC3(val_mpint, ssh_rsakex_decrypt, val_rsakex, hashalg, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* Bare RSA keys as used in SSH-1. The construction API functions
* write into an existing RSAKey object, so I've invented an 'rsa_new'
* function to make one in the first place.
*/
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
FUNC0(val_rsa, rsa_new)
FUNC3(void, get_rsa_ssh1_pub, val_string_binarysource, val_rsa, rsaorder)
FUNC2(void, get_rsa_ssh1_priv, val_string_binarysource, val_rsa)
FUNC2(val_string, rsa_ssh1_encrypt, val_string_ptrlen, val_rsa)
FUNC2(val_mpint, rsa_ssh1_decrypt, val_mpint, val_rsa)
FUNC2(val_string, rsa_ssh1_decrypt_pkcs1, val_mpint, val_rsa)
FUNC1(val_string_asciz, rsastr_fmt, val_rsa)
FUNC1(val_string_asciz, rsa_ssh1_fingerprint, val_rsa)
FUNC3(void, rsa_ssh1_public_blob, out_val_string_binarysink, val_rsa, rsaorder)
FUNC1(int, rsa_ssh1_public_blob_len, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* Miscellaneous.
*/
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
FUNC2(val_wpoint, ecdsa_public, val_mpint, keyalg)
FUNC2(val_epoint, eddsa_public, val_mpint, keyalg)
FUNC2(val_string, des_encrypt_xdmauth, val_string_ptrlen, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC2(val_string, des_decrypt_xdmauth, val_string_ptrlen, val_string_ptrlen)
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
/*
* These functions aren't part of PuTTY's own API, but are additions
* by testcrypt itself for administrative purposes.
*/
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
FUNC1(void, random_queue, val_string_ptrlen)
FUNC0(uint, random_queue_len)
FUNC0(void, random_clear)
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink