crypto: refactor argument validation for pbkdf2 by jasnell · Pull Request #15746 · nodejs/node

jasnell · 2017-10-03T03:58:07Z

Move input argument validation to js, using internal/errors.

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
documentation is changed or added
commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

crypto

thefourtheye · 2017-10-03T16:05:22Z

Number.isFinite already checks if it is a NaN

ah right, good point :-)

thefourtheye · 2017-10-03T16:23:02Z

DEFAULT_ENCODING would not affect the digest, right? Do we really need the following tests?

It does. DEFAULT_ENCODING changes the encoding of the derived key returned.

It concerns me a bit that the way it is put in documentation right now suggest use of DEFAULT_ENCODING. Can we discourage it?

Yeah, that's a good point. Document it's possible but strongly discourage it.

It affects the derived key, but these tests are validating only the digest. So these tests look superfluous to me.

ha! actually I think I was intending these to be something else but got distracted and didn't finish editing the test! If you notice, the items below are identical to the items above ;-) I'll take another pass at that lol

thefourtheye · 2017-10-03T16:49:30Z

Just a dumb question: Till today my understanding was that INT_MAX would be the size of the word of the given processor architecture. But today, even on my 64-bit machine, the value is defined as 2147483647. I am a little confused here. C++ Spec is not very clear in this regard. Do you know where I can get a clear answer?

@thefourtheyeINT_MAX is the maximal value of the signed int type. int can be anything larger than or equal to 16 bits, although most compilers implement it as 32 bits. The number you are seeing is 2^31-1.

@tniessen That is exactly the problem. There is no guarantee that it is going to be always 2^31-1, right? Otherwise this test will fail.

@thefourtheye I believe all compilers we officially support use 32 bit ints on all supported platforms, though I might be mistaken. If I remember correctly, there is also INT32_MAX, but I am not sure it is more appropriate to use. INT_MAX seems fine as long as we use int internally. If INT_MAX is greater on some platforms, e.g. 2^63-1, it will likely be bigger than MAX_SAFE_INTEGER (which I believe is around 2^54).

Ah, "all compilers we officially support"- that is the key here. Let me start a CI to confirm this.

If just to be safe, we can use process.binding('constants').crypto.INT_MAX + 1 here

indutny

LGTM

thefourtheye · 2017-10-05T03:29:56Z

CI Run: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/10408/

jasnell · 2017-10-16T16:50:17Z

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/10761/

joyeecheung · 2017-10-17T05:51:12Z

Maybe a link to crypto.getHashes() here?

Move input argument validation to js, using internal/errors. Also update docs * `password` and `salt` may be Buffers or any TypedArrays * `crypto.DEFAULT_ENCODING` changes the returned derivedKey type

jasnell · 2017-10-23T19:42:34Z

New CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/10928/

Move input argument validation to js, using internal/errors. Also update docs * `password` and `salt` may be Buffers or any TypedArrays * `crypto.DEFAULT_ENCODING` changes the returned derivedKey type PR-URL: #15746 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>

jasnell · 2017-10-23T22:55:59Z

Landed in 7124b46

Move input argument validation to js, using internal/errors. Also update docs * `password` and `salt` may be Buffers or any TypedArrays * `crypto.DEFAULT_ENCODING` changes the returned derivedKey type PR-URL: nodejs/node#15746 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <thechargingvolcano@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Fedor Indutny <fedor.indutny@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com>

nodejs-github-bot added c++ Issues and PRs that require attention from people who are familiar with C++. lib / src Issues and PRs related to general changes in the lib or src directory. labels Oct 3, 2017

jasnell force-pushed the pbkdf2_internal_errors branch from 443042f to 7afbaa2Compare October 3, 2017 04:12

jasnell added errors Issues and PRs related to JavaScript errors originated in Node.js core. semver-major PRs that contain breaking changes and should be released in the next major version. labels Oct 3, 2017

jasnell requested a review from a teamOctober 3, 2017 04:12

lpinca approved these changes Oct 3, 2017
View reviewed changes

thefourtheye approved these changes Oct 3, 2017
View reviewed changes

indutny approved these changes Oct 3, 2017
View reviewed changes

jasnell force-pushed the pbkdf2_internal_errors branch 2 times, most recently from 05c3eb3 to 812d575Compare October 16, 2017 16:49

joyeecheung approved these changes Oct 17, 2017
View reviewed changes

Comment threaddoc/api/errors.md Outdated
joyeecheungOct 17, 2017
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a link to crypto.getHashes() here?

jasnell added 2 commits October 23, 2017 12:28

crypto: refactor argument validation for pbkdf2
2b141c1
Move input argument validation to js, using internal/errors. Also update docs * `password` and `salt` may be Buffers or any TypedArrays * `crypto.DEFAULT_ENCODING` changes the returned derivedKey type

[Squash] nits
572b090

jasnell force-pushed the pbkdf2_internal_errors branch from dce9707 to 572b090Compare October 23, 2017 19:40

jasnell closed this Oct 23, 2017

jasnell mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2017
Proposal: 2017-10-31, Version 9.0.0 (Current) #15135
Merged

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

jasnell commented Oct 3, 2017

Checklist

Affected core subsystem(s)

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

indutny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thefourtheye commented Oct 5, 2017

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Oct 16, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Oct 23, 2017

Uh oh!

jasnell commented Oct 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants