355 otar decrypt status #360
Conversation
…. Need to add UTs
…s for some reason, don't want the other to not be verified
…ctive with invalid settings to decrypt call fails for libgcrypt and error bubbles up.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #360 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.04% 84.12% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 83 81 -2
Lines 23507 21719 -1788
Branches 1783 1757 -26
==========================================
- Hits 19757 18271 -1486
+ Misses 3075 2765 -310
- Partials 675 683 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| @@ -1974,7 +1974,7 @@ int32_t Crypto_TC_ProcessSecurity_Cam(uint8_t *ingest, int *len_ingest, TC_t *tc | |||
| else | |||
| { | |||
| // Some Magic here to log that an inappropriate SA was attempted to be used for EP | |||
| status = CRYPTO_LIB_ERR_SPI_INDEX_OOB; // TODO: Do we want a different error code for this? | |||
| status = CRYPTO_LIB_ERR_SDLS_EP_WRONG_SPI; // TODO: Do we want a different error code for this? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably a good call on changing this error code to something more specific. Should we remove that comment now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rjbrown2 There is some weirdness here where we log an error status on 1978, then reset the final status to success. Could you ping me on that if you know/understand why it looks like that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is done that way so that we log that we attempted to process a PDU, but did not because it wasn't the appropriate SA. We log the error so that users would know what happened (without giving away too much other information), and then return successfully.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We didn't set and return any failures here, as that would have required a lot more manipulation, and Donnie and I decided that this would be the best method for now without a big discussion...unless you disagree...then hack away.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. Sounds like by doing this and bubbling the error up it causes a lot of issues. I'll open a separate issue to track this.
No description provided.