-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
Add support for XOF algorithms #253
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
Conversation
Would value any feedback on the naming of the input/output functions for the XOF operation API. As noted in the TODO in this PR:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I like psa_xof_input() and psa_xof_output().
As a XOF does not accept a key, the _bytes() seems tautologous to me, and therefore I would go for the shorter name.
So I am happy as is - though obviously the todo section needs to be removed.
I like the change to numbering in tens - reminds me of BBC BASIC. :-)
Rebased after fixing copyright dates in one of the set-up commits. |
bf467ea
to
538ce56
Compare
I am tempted to revisit the naming convention question. All existing multi-part operations that take incremental inputs use the verb 'update' to add inputs: hash, MAC, cipher, AEAD. KDF uses the verb 'input' as there are many different inputs, and they are not streamed into the KDF. For streamed output, KDF does use 'output', but in this case, the behavior of the output functions is the same as we need for XOF. So, my revised opinion is to use the pair: Although this is not 'a matching pair', that statement is true of all of the other streaming input multi-part operations, which use update/finish or update/compare. |
Changed the input function to |
* Add psa_xof_operation_t and its functions. * Add SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 XOF algorithms.
psa_xof_operation_t
and its functions.Fixes #248