Decoupled crypto backends (the rest) #428
Conversation
# Conflicts: # Cargo.toml # examples/custom_header.rs # examples/validation.rs # src/crypto/ecdsa.rs # src/crypto/rsa.rs # src/jwk.rs
This is following the existing scheme established in hmac & rsa.
|
:o how did i miss this sorry, i'll go through it asap |
| @@ -48,8 +60,10 @@ time = { version = "0.3", features = ["wasm-bindgen"] } | |||
| criterion = { version = "0.4", default-features = false } | |||
|
|
|||
| [features] | |||
| default = ["use_pem"] | |||
| default = ["use_pem", "aws_lc_rs"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we have a default crypto backend or let users pick the one they want?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean, that's up to you. I personally think it's nice to have a reasonable default.
| return Err(new_error(ErrorKind::MissingAlgorithm)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Todo: This behaviour is currently not captured anywhere. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you have an idea on how to improve that, i'll take it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment is actually @sidrubs', I'm not entirely sure what they mean by that, whether it's not covered by tests, or docs, or...?
|
I'll have a go at reducing the duplication through some macros and addressing the other comments. |
|
Alright, done some refactoring to reduce the duplication and re-enabled the WASM HMAC test cases. I checked that tests pass with both AWS-LC and Rust-crypto. |
This is following up on #410 with the rest of the decoupled implementations, and addressing most of the review comments (I think?).
There are still some todos left for documentation, which I haven't filled in yet.
I've verified that tests & clippy pass with all combinations of features, but a lot of this I only know enough about to be dangerous, so I'd appreciate close looks at the actual implementations to make sure e.g. I've picked the correct library functions in each case.