Document that passing 0 to a close/destroy function does nothing and
returns PSA_SUCCESS.
Although this was not written explicitly, the specification strongly
suggested that this would return PSA_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE. While
returning INVALID_HANDLE makes sense, it was awkward for a very common
programming style where applications can store 0 in a handle variable
to indicate that the handle has been closed or has never been open:
applications had to either check if (handle != 0) before calling
psa_close_key(handle) or psa_destroy_key(handle), or ignore errors
from the close/destroy function. Now applications following this style
can just call psa_close_key(handle) or psa_destroy_key(handle).
Add a parameter to the p_validate_slot_number method to allow the
driver to modify the persistent data.
With the current structure of the core, the persistent data is already
updated. All it took was adding a way to modify it.
When registering a key in a secure element, go through the transaction
mechanism. This makes the code simpler, at the expense of a few extra
storage operations. Given that registering a key is typically very
rare over the lifetime of a device, this is an acceptable loss.
Drivers must now have a p_validate_slot_number method, otherwise
registering a key is not possible. This reduces the risk that due to a
mistake during the integration of a device, an application might claim
a slot in a way that is not supported by the driver.
Define a vendor-range within the the private use ranges in the IANA
registry. Provide recommendations for how to support vendor-defined
curves and groups.
If none of the inputs to a key derivation is a
PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_SECRET passed with
psa_key_derivation_input_key(), forbid
psa_key_derivation_output_key(). It usually doesn't make sense to
derive a key object if the secret isn't itself a proper key.
Allow a direct input as the SECRET input step in a key derivation, in
addition to allowing DERIVE keys. This makes it easier for
applications to run a key derivation where the "secret" input is
obtained from somewhere else. This makes it possible for the "secret"
input to be empty (keys cannot be empty), which some protocols do (for
example the IV derivation in EAP-TLS).
Conversely, allow a RAW_DATA key as the INFO/LABEL/SALT/SEED input to a key
derivation, in addition to allowing direct inputs. This doesn't
improve security, but removes a step when a personalization parameter
is stored in the key store, and allows this personalization parameter
to remain opaque.
Add test cases that explore step/key-type-and-keyhood combinations.
Keys of size 0 generally don't make sense: a key is supposed to be
secret. There is one edge case which is "raw data" keys, which are
useful to store non-key objects in the same storage location as keys.
However those are also problematic because they involve a zero-length
buffer. Manipulating zero-length buffers in C requires special cases
with functions like malloc() and memcpy(). Additionally, 0 as a key
size already has a meaning "unspecified", which does not always
overlap seamlessly with the meaning "0".
Therefore, forbid keys of size 0. No implementation may accept them.
Clarify how key creation functions use attributes. Explain the meaning
of attribute values, espcially what 0 means in each field where it has
a special meaning. Explain what an algorithm usage policy can be (an
algorithm, a wildcard with ANY_HASH, or 0).
* open output distinct key handles
* each handle must be closed
* destroying a key does not invalidate other handles
* closing a key can/might fail an active operation (but not required)
It may be possible that the implementation runs out of
memory when exporting a key from storage or a secure
element. For example, it may not be possible to directly
move the data from storage to the caller, so the implementation
will have to buffer the material temporarily (an issue if dynamic
memory allocation scheme is used). For a large key
this is more likely to return.
It may be possible that an implementation does not
fetch key material until a command like
this is called and such an error may occur if an
off-chip secure storage dependency may have been wiped.
Note that PSA_ERROR_NOT_PERMITTED is not included
because I can't think of a scenario where you have
a valid key handle but aren't allowed to read the
attributes
If the key doesn't exist by the time this call is made
then the handle is invalid,
which means that PSA_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE should be
returned rather than "does not exist"
It may be possible that the implementation runs out of
memory when exporting a key from storage or a secure
element. For example, it may not be possible to directly
move the data from storage to the caller, so the implementation
will have to buffer the material temporarily (an issue if dynamic
memory allocation scheme is used). For a large key
this is more likely to return.
