Simo Sorce <s...@redhat.com> writes:
> Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test case.
> Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole new test.
I think it's ok to have it in the same file.
> -static void
> -set_point (struct ecc_point *p,
> - const char *x, const char *y)
> +static int
> +ret_set_point (struct ecc_point *p,
> + const char *x, const char *y)
> {
I think it's nicer to just change set_point to return int, and wrap
all existing calls in ASSERT, e.g,
- set_point (&A, ax, ay);
+ ASSERT (set_point (&A, ax, ay));
in test_dh. Or name functions as int set_point(...), void
set_point_or_die (...), but I think ASSERT is still clearer, in this
case.
> + test_public_key ("(0,0) with secp-192r1", &_nettle_secp_192r1, "0", "0",
> 0);
> + test_public_key (
> + "(P,0) with secp-192r1", &_nettle_secp_192r1,
> + "6277101735386680763835789423207666416083908700390324961279",
> + "0", 0);
Any particular reason the tests are all for secp_192r1 ?
Regards,
/Niels
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
_______________________________________________
nettle-bugs mailing list
nettle-bugs@lists.lysator.liu.se
http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
