On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote: > 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.
Ok, will change. > > + 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 ? Less copy-pasting as the numbers are smaller, the curve used really makes no difference. Nioks, is the fact we do not enable 192r1 in some distribution a problem? Simo. -- Simo Sorce Sr. Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list nettle-bugs@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs