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.

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

Various minor technical fixes #147

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jul 27, 2016
Merged

Various minor technical fixes #147

merged 7 commits into from Jul 27, 2016

Conversation

vijaybh
Copy link
Contributor

@vijaybh vijaybh commented Jul 22, 2016

All of these are small and contained fixes, and should be non-controversial. The most impactful one is moving secure contexts from SHOULD to MUST. Please review and provide feedback. Thanks!

extensions. The first bytes before the extensions have a fixed layout as follows:
The field `rawData` for this type is a byte array of 17 bytes + length of AAGUID + length of public key + length of Credential
ID + length of clientDataHash + potentially more extensions. The first bytes before the extensions have a fixed layout as
follows:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I (finally) figured out how we keep getting various different values for the fixed length of the rawData before the public key itself -- it is because some of us (i.e. myself) take the 17 bytes (or the old 45 bytes) to mean the length of rawData before the first variable length field, rather than the sum of all of the fixed-length rawData fields, which it seems is (now more clearly) stated above.

Thus I think the above paragraph is needlessly misleading and we should update it. Here is a proposal..

The packed attestation rawData field is a variable-length byte array, consisting of various fixed-length and variable-length sub-fields, arranged as given in the below table:

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, other than my prior comment/suggestion, this PR looks good to me -- thanks for reviewing and implementing those various outstanding issues.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, that is an excellent suggestion and it makes the text a lot less clunky. Will update the PR shortly.

@jcjones
Copy link
Contributor

jcjones commented Jul 27, 2016

This all looks OK to me, too. I'm really glad you caught the last Key Handle / Credential ID changes - I must have looked at that text a dozen times and never recognized it was incongruous. Thank you.

@vijaybh
Copy link
Contributor Author

vijaybh commented Jul 27, 2016

Thanks! Merging, now that this has two reviews.

@vijaybh vijaybh merged commit 9636ca2 into master Jul 27, 2016
@vijaybh vijaybh deleted the vgb-technical-patches branch July 27, 2016 23:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants