Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Use BigUint for the Signature internal representations #220

Closed
lumag opened this issue Nov 7, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

Use BigUint for the Signature internal representations #220

lumag opened this issue Nov 7, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@lumag
Copy link
Contributor

lumag commented Nov 7, 2022

Ideally we could replace the internal representation of a Signatures with a BigUint now, which would eliminate the need for an intermediate Box<[u8]> when signing/verifying.

Originally posted by @tarcieri in #217 (comment)
@lumag lumag mentioned this issue Nov 7, 2022
Merged
@tarcieri
Copy link
Member

tarcieri commented Nov 7, 2022

cc @npmccallum

There are many APIs that currently take a slice which would need at least an equivalent API which operates on a BigUint.

I think we could potentially consider removing some of the old APIs from the public API as well.

tarcieri added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 18, 2023
@tarcieri
pkcs1v15: use BigUint as Signature's inner type
b7efbd6 
This one half of #220.

Doing anything with a signature involves converting it from bytes into a
`BigUint`, so this changes the inner type the latter which is more
useful.

It should also help address #272, since it will enable doing those sort
of checks more eagerly.
@tarcieri tarcieri mentioned this issue Apr 18, 2023
Merged
tarcieri added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 18, 2023
@tarcieri
pkcs1v15: use BigUint as Signature's inner type (#298)
2ec8708 
This one half of #220.

Doing anything with a signature involves converting it from bytes into a
`BigUint`, so this changes the inner type the latter which is more
useful.

It should also help address #272, since it will enable doing those sort
of checks more eagerly.
@tarcieri
Copy link
Member

Implemented in #298 and #300

@tarcieri tarcieri mentioned this issue Apr 25, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@tarcieri @lumag