-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.9k
Which sample programs to keep in 1.0/4.0 #9904
Copy link
Copy link
Closed
6 / 116 of 11 issues completedLabels
size-sEstimated task size: small (~2d)Estimated task size: small (~2d)
Description
For each program under /programs in Mbed TLS 3.6, should we remove, keep, adapt or rewrite for TF-PSA-Crypto 1.0 or Mbed TLS 4.0?
This is an investigation task. The expected outcome is a list/table covering every program, with the desired outcome for each program and a justification (which I expect will usually be just a short sentence fragment). The outcomes I can think of:
- Keep as is, e.g.
x509/*— no work to be scheduled - Remove (because it is not really useful for anything except demonstrating the legacy crypto API), e.g.
crypt_and_hash— we'll remove those in batch - Replace (because it has a useful purpose, but the current implementation relies heavily on the legacy crypto API), e.g.
cipher_aead_demo(for which the rewriting has already been done) — we'll remove those and file issues to replace them after 1.0/4.0 - Keep, but will need minor adjustments due to rare use of APIs that are now private, e.g.
programs/fuzz/fuzz_*key— file an issue to do the minor adjustments, which will be considered for 1.0/4.0 - Keep, but will need major adjustments due to major use of APIs that are now private, e.g.
benchmark— file an issue for the rewrite, which will happen after 1.0/4.0.
Definition of done for this task: the list/table, and file issues where we identify that work needs to be done.
Reasons to keep a program:
- If it's useful as a sample of API usage.
- If it's useful as a test.
- If its functionality is useful, e.g.
programs/x509/*are meant to be usable to run a simple CA and work with a simple CA, and some ofprograms/pk/*are complementary with that.
Reactions are currently unavailable
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
size-sEstimated task size: small (~2d)Estimated task size: small (~2d)
Type
Projects
Status
1.0 MVP DI