WIP: Add prompt implementation for service method unlock #173
Conversation
This file contains 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
SecretExchange allows exchange of secrets between two processes on the same system without exposing those secrets. https://gnome.pages.gitlab.gnome.org/gcr/gcr-4/class.SecretExchange.html Signed-off-by: Dhanuka Warusadura <dhanuka@gnome.org>
Signed-off-by: Dhanuka Warusadura <dhanuka@gnome.org>
| @@ -81,6 +81,17 @@ pub(crate) fn generate_public_key(private_key: impl AsRef<[u8]>) -> Vec<u8> { | |||
| public_key_uint.to_bytes_be() | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| pub(crate) fn generate_public_key_for_secret_exchange(private_key: impl AsRef<[u8]>) -> Vec<u8> { | |||
| let private_key_uint = BigUint::from_bytes_be(private_key.as_ref()); | |||
| let dh_generator = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should use LazyLock nowadays.
|
|
||
| let mut common_secret_bytes = common_secret.to_bytes_be(); | ||
| let mut common_secret_padded = vec![0; 192 - common_secret_bytes.len()]; | ||
| // inefficient, but ok for now |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is inefficient about it
| fn powm_for_secret_exchange(base: &BigUint, mut exp: BigUint) -> BigUint { | ||
| let modulus = { | ||
| // for key exchange | ||
| static DH_PRIME: OnceLock<BigUint> = OnceLock::new(); |
Comment on lines
+99
to
+105
| Dh::from_pqg( | ||
| BigNum::get_rfc3526_prime_1536().unwrap(), | ||
| None, | ||
| BigNum::from_u32(2).unwrap(), | ||
| ) | ||
| .and_then(|key| key.set_private_key(private_key_bn)) | ||
| .unwrap() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See my latest PR, don't unwrap here
| None, | ||
| BigNum::from_u32(2).unwrap(), | ||
| ) | ||
| .and_then(|key| key.set_private_key(private_key_bn)) |
Comment on lines
+94
to
+100
| let secret = decoded.get(SECRET); | ||
|
|
||
| // If we cancel an ongoing prompt call, the final exchange won't have the secret | ||
| // or IV. The following is to avoid `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value | ||
| secret?; | ||
|
|
||
| let secret = secret.unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| let secret = decoded.get(SECRET); | |
| // If we cancel an ongoing prompt call, the final exchange won't have the secret | |
| // or IV. The following is to avoid `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value | |
| secret?; | |
| let secret = secret.unwrap(); | |
| // If we cancel an ongoing prompt call, the final exchange won't have the secret | |
| // or IV. The following is to avoid `Option::unwrap()` on a `None` value | |
| let secret = decoded.get(SECRET)?; | |
Comment on lines
+103
to
+104
| let false_secret: Vec<u8> = vec![0, 1]; | ||
| return Some(Zeroizing::new(false_secret)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| let false_secret: Vec<u8> = vec![0, 1]; | |
| return Some(Zeroizing::new(false_secret)); | |
| let false_secret = vec![0, 1]; | |
| return Some(Zeroizing::new(false_secret)); |
Comment on lines
+107
to
+109
| let iv = decoded.get(IV).unwrap(); | ||
| let decoded = decode(aes_key).unwrap(); | ||
| let aes_key = Key::new(decoded.get(PRIVATE).unwrap().to_vec()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| let iv = decoded.get(IV).unwrap(); | |
| let decoded = decode(aes_key).unwrap(); | |
| let aes_key = Key::new(decoded.get(PRIVATE).unwrap().to_vec()); | |
| let iv = decoded.get(IV)?; | |
| let decoded = decode(aes_key)?; | |
| let aes_key = Key::new(decoded.get(PRIVATE)?.to_vec()); |
| use super::*; | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_secret_exchange() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should the opposite also be tested?
| let (unlocked, _not_unlocked) = self.set_locked(false, &objects).await?; | ||
| let (unlocked, not_unlocked) = self.set_locked(false, &objects).await?; | ||
| if !not_unlocked.is_empty() { | ||
| let prompt = Prompt::new(self.clone()).await; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The prompt also needs a way to pass it a future that would be executed when the prompt is done
|
Thanks for the prompt review @bilelmoussaoui |
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| use std::{ | |||
| ops::{Mul, Rem, Shr}, | |||
| sync::LazyLock, | |||
| sync::{LazyLock, OnceLock}, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This lacks an openssl implementation as well as that is what most distros will likely use the daemon with
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will do, thanks!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is not feature complete. Please don't review.