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.

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

[Symmetric Encryption HIL] Don't use block_size in the key context #749

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 20, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@niklasad1
Member

niklasad1 commented Feb 18, 2018

Pull Request Overview

Changes usage of constants in the AES128 interface because we assume the block size and key size are the same. Well. yes they are both 16 bytes in AES128 but that is not the case for AES192 and AES256 so I wanted to clarify that!

Testing Strategy

Run the AES_CTR Tests on nRF52-DK

TODO or Help Wanted

Documentation Updated

  • [ ] Kernel: The relevant files in /docs have been updated or no updates are required.
  • [ ] Userland: The application README has been added, updated, or no updates are required.

Formatting

  • make formatall has been run.

@niklasad1 niklasad1 changed the title from [Symmetric Encryption HIL] Changed naming of con to [Symmetric Encryption HIL] Don't use block_size in the key context Feb 18, 2018

@alevy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alevy

alevy Feb 20, 2018

Member

This seems fine to me. When we have support for const generics, these will probably move to a trait specified constant, which makes even more sense, right?

I think @daniel-scs should at least sign off on this, but my position is that if he's cool with it, we should merge.

Member

alevy commented Feb 20, 2018

This seems fine to me. When we have support for const generics, these will probably move to a trait specified constant, which makes even more sense, right?

I think @daniel-scs should at least sign off on this, but my position is that if he's cool with it, we should merge.

@daniel-scs

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daniel-scs

daniel-scs Feb 20, 2018

Contributor

Looks good to me!

Contributor

daniel-scs commented Feb 20, 2018

Looks good to me!

@alevy

alevy approved these changes Feb 20, 2018

@alevy alevy added the P-Upkeep label Feb 20, 2018

@alevy alevy merged commit bc62986 into tock:master Feb 20, 2018

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
deploy/netlify Deploy preview ready!
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment