Clarify what MBEDTLS_ERR_ECP_SIG_LEN_MISMATCH and
MBEDTLS_ERR_PK_SIG_LEN_MISMATCH mean. Add comments to highlight that
this indicates that a valid signature is present, unlike other error
codes. See
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/1149#discussion_r178130705
Conflict resolution:
* ChangeLog
* tests/data_files/Makefile: concurrent additions, order irrelevant
* tests/data_files/test-ca.opensslconf: concurrent additions, order irrelevant
* tests/scripts/all.sh: one comment change conflicted with a code
addition. In addition some of the additions in the
iotssl-1381-x509-verify-refactor-restricted branch need support for
keep-going mode, this will be added in a subsequent commit.
The relevant ASN.1 definitions for a PKCS#8 encoded Elliptic Curve key are:
PrivateKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
version Version,
privateKeyAlgorithm PrivateKeyAlgorithmIdentifier,
privateKey PrivateKey,
attributes [0] IMPLICIT Attributes OPTIONAL
}
AlgorithmIdentifier ::= SEQUENCE {
algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
parameters ANY DEFINED BY algorithm OPTIONAL
}
ECParameters ::= CHOICE {
namedCurve OBJECT IDENTIFIER
-- implicitCurve NULL
-- specifiedCurve SpecifiedECDomain
}
ECPrivateKey ::= SEQUENCE {
version INTEGER { ecPrivkeyVer1(1) } (ecPrivkeyVer1),
privateKey OCTET STRING,
parameters [0] ECParameters {{ NamedCurve }} OPTIONAL,
publicKey [1] BIT STRING OPTIONAL
}
Because of the two optional fields, there are 4 possible variants that need to
be parsed: no optional fields, only parameters, only public key, and both
optional fields. Previously mbedTLS was unable to parse keys with "only
parameters". Also, only "only public key" was tested. There was a test for "no
optional fields", but it was labelled incorrectly as SEC.1 and not run because
of a great renaming mixup.
In mbedtls_ssl_derive_keys, don't call mbedtls_md_hmac_starts in
ciphersuites that don't use HMAC. This doesn't change the behavior of
the code, but avoids relying on an uncaught error when attempting to
start an HMAC operation that hadn't been initialized.
For library/certs.c the issue is resolved by aligning it with the version in
the 2.7 branch (which is currently the same as the version in the development
branch)
