-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: support detached payloads in COSESign and COSESign1 #197
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Hi, @alex-richards, Without knowing more about the specific scenario you want to implement, you might want to check this new draft for HASH Envelopes. It addresses many of the challenges detached payloads solve and create. Here's a set of slides we're presenting this week at the COSE Working group. While we're still generally supportive for go-cose supporting detached payloads, one of the advantages of HASH Envelope is it's "just a payload" and you won't need to detach and re-attach the payload. Just FYI, we should still support detached payloads in go-cose. |
Thanks Steve, I'll have a read, though I'm interested in ISO 18013-5, which specifies detached payloads. I've removed the breaking changes. |
4e80ef5
to
bc11d1c
Compare
Hi @alex-richards. Welcome to the verasion/go-cose project and thank you for your contributions. Thank you |
Hi Steve, Yeah, sure. Do you have a preferred private way for me to get in touch? |
You can reach me through my linkedin profile info. |
bc11d1c
to
1736a40
Compare
Hey Steve, I've signed as discussed. Cheers, Alex |
Thanks, @alex-richards, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems ok to me, but it would be good to get more reviews, since this touches several interfaces
Thanks, @alex-richards, can you please resolve the DCO error: https://github.com/veraison/go-cose/pull/197/checks?check_run_id=27984447393 |
1736a40
to
a636db9
Compare
a636db9
to
94007e7
Compare
@qmuntal I've made those changes, yeah, they're much clearer. Not sure what resolving etiquette is here, tag you? Resolve myself? |
You can resolve them yourself 👍 |
94007e7
to
40060e0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks!
Any merging etiquette I should know about? Or just go for it once it's approved? Is 2 enough? |
Due to the slightly larger change, it would be good to have an additional golang and cose expert weigh in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks very good to me. Thanks a lot for the great contribution!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left some minor points on the comments to Verify, but in general LGTM!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd like to discuss more about the design in #195 before merging this PR as I have commented at #195 (comment)
func Sign1Detached(rand io.Reader, signer Signer, headers Headers, detached, external []byte) ([]byte, error) { | ||
msg := Sign1Message{ | ||
Headers: headers, | ||
} | ||
err := msg.SignDetached(rand, detached, external, signer) | ||
if err != nil { | ||
return nil, err | ||
} | ||
return msg.MarshalCBOR() | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we really need
func (m *SignMessage) SignDetached(rand io.Reader, detached, external []byte, signers ...Signer) error
func (m *Sign1Message) SignDetached(rand io.Reader, detached, external []byte, signer Signer) error
?
Can Sign1Detached
be implemented as
func Sign1Detached(rand io.Reader, signer Signer, headers Headers, detached, external []byte) ([]byte, error) { | |
msg := Sign1Message{ | |
Headers: headers, | |
} | |
err := msg.SignDetached(rand, detached, external, signer) | |
if err != nil { | |
return nil, err | |
} | |
return msg.MarshalCBOR() | |
} | |
func Sign1Detached(rand io.Reader, signer Signer, headers Headers, detached, external []byte) ([]byte, error) { | |
msg := Sign1Message{ | |
Headers: headers, | |
Payload: detached, | |
} | |
err := msg.Sign(rand, external, signer) | |
if err != nil { | |
return nil, err | |
} | |
msg.Payload = nil | |
return msg.MarshalCBOR() | |
} |
?
Same question for SignDetached
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems fussy to me, would making detached the base case and calling from Sign1
be ok? Saves unsetting the payload on the detached object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
would making detached the base case and calling from Sign1 be ok?
IMO yes. @shizhMSFT wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shizhMSFT, I believe this is the blocking issue on this PR. Can we consider refactoring the implementation, either in this PR, or a separate PR? Either way, can we come to some conclusion here to move forward?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@alex-richards Are you suggesting
func sign1(rand io.Reader, signer Signer, headers Headers, payload, external []byte) (*Sign1Message, error) {
msg := Sign1Message{
Headers: headers,
Payload: payload,
}
err := msg.Sign(rand, external, signer)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
return msg, nil
}
func Sign1(rand io.Reader, signer Signer, headers Headers, payload, external []byte) ([]byte, error) {
msg, err := sign1(rand, signer, headers, payload, external)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
return msg.MarshalCBOR()
}
func Sign1Detached(rand io.Reader, signer Signer, headers Headers, detached, external []byte) ([]byte, error) {
msg, err := sign1(rand, signer, headers, detached, external)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
}
msg.Payload = nil
return msg.MarshalCBOR()
}
That refactoring works for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@alex-richards, @shizhMSFT
Can this comment be resoled?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@SteveLasker I think it will be better if we gather more inputs from other maintainers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Disclaimer: I am very much a random passerby, nudged to look at this. I do spend a lot time with COSE, in languages other than Go.
The refactoring proposed by @shizhMSFT seems quite reasonable to me, and results in a slightly cleaner API in my opinion.
Signed-off-by: Alex Richards <alex-richards@users.noreply.github.com>
40060e0
to
fa0344c
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #197 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.04% 91.06% -0.99%
==========================================
Files 12 12
Lines 1973 1678 -295
==========================================
- Hits 1816 1528 -288
+ Misses 108 94 -14
- Partials 49 56 +7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Thanks for all the feedback. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changing to "Request changes"
A note we'll be reviewing today in the fortnightly go-cose meeting if folks would like to attend or comment prior to the meeting. |
Co-authored-by: Shiwei Zhang <shizh@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Steve Lasker <stevenlasker@hotmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did a full review, @shizhMSFT 's comments need to be applied or dismissed.
@shizhMSFT, @alex-richards, this feedback appears to be the blocking topic. Can we focus on unblocking that element? I see the discussion on #195 and #205. |
@alex-richards, @shizhMSFT, gentle ping on Issue #195 and PR #197 |
Hey,
I've extended COSESign and COSESign1 to support detached payloads, adds a parameter to the public API, not sure if that's desirable.
I'm also pretty new to Go, I've tried to copy the existing style but I'm sure there's plenty that could be improved.
Cheers, Alex
#195