[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #16794 [Core Tor/Tor]: All cryptography unit test coverage should be over 95%; all should have test vectors
#16794: All cryptography unit test coverage should be over 95%; all should have
test vectors
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: nickm | Owner: nickm
Type: enhancement | Status:
Priority: Medium | needs_review
Component: Core Tor/Tor | Milestone: Tor:
Severity: Normal | 0.2.9.x-final
Keywords: testing, 028-triage, tor-tests- | Version:
coverage, tor-tests-unit, TorCoreTeam201605, | Resolution:
review-group-1 | Actual Points:
Parent ID: #16791 | Points: medium
Reviewer: isis | Sponsor:
| SponsorS-can
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by isis):
When we say "coverage should be over 95%", do we mean line coverage,
function coverage, or branch coverage? I currently see line coverage for
src/common/crypto.c at 93.3% (but function coverage is over 96%).
Review:
* `d1f2af57` LGTM.
* `405b6375` LGTM.
* `44a32481` I checked that the vectors match those in RFC7748. LGTM.
* `54697fa4` I checked that the vectors match those in NIST SP800-38a
ÂF.5 for AES-128 CTR. LGTM.
* `5845c228` Again, I manually checked that the vectors match those in
draft-irtf-cfrg-eddsa-05. LGTM.
I'm not super familiar with IRTF drafts and their statuses (specifically
what might change in them), but that draft is currently in "Waiting for
Document Shepherd" state. How much should we worry that, through the
shepherding process, the vectors might change? Should we be keeping a
close eye on this?
[review to be continuedâ]
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/16794#comment:25>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs