-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Implement record chunking for "aes128gcm" scheme. #60
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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'll admit, I couldn't entirely get my head around the previous record-chunking algorithm, but as far as I could tell it was doing a kind of greedy allocation of as much padding a possible to the start of the record stream. For example, if you requested 10 bytes of plaintext and 10 bytes of padding split between two records, you'd get 1 plaintext + 9 padding in the first record, then 9 plaintext and 1 padding in the second.
My read of the padding-related comments in the RFC suggests that we should instead by trying to distribute the plaintext as evenly as possible between the records, to reduce potential for observable timing differences in the processing of each record. I have tried to implement such here (and I intend to add some tests to demonstrate on concrete examples).
I have also removed an error case where we would refuse to ever generate a record consisting entirely of padding. The RFC does specifically warn against naively generating such records, and the algorithm here will only do so under particularly degenerate cases. But IMHO it may be legit for an application to want to pad out e.g. a very short message to a large fixed length, and it's not helpful for us to prevent it from doing so.
I believe we inherited this error case from the C ece library, but note that Martin's nodejs implementation does not seem to error out in this case, so I feel pretty comfortable in removing it.
(It's also true that in the current setup, if a caller did hit this error then there's nothing they can do about it, because we don't expose the ability to select the amount of padding; callers might just accidentally land on a plaintext + padding size that produces a padding-only block out of bad luck).