On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 08:07, Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This test verifies that ECDSA_UCLASS is implemented, and that
> ecdsa_verify() works as expected. The definition of "expected" is
> "does not find a device, and returns -ENODEV".
>
> The lack of a hardware-independent ECDSA implementation prevents us
> from having one in the sandbox, for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>
> ---
> configs/sandbox_defconfig | 2 ++
> test/dm/Makefile | 1 +
> test/dm/ecdsa.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 test/dm/ecdsa.c
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>
> diff --git a/configs/sandbox_defconfig b/configs/sandbox_defconfig
> index c9318d4af5..4681a8c7a2 100644
> --- a/configs/sandbox_defconfig
> +++ b/configs/sandbox_defconfig
> @@ -285,3 +285,5 @@ CONFIG_TEST_FDTDEC=y
> CONFIG_UNIT_TEST=y
> CONFIG_UT_TIME=y
> CONFIG_UT_DM=y
> +CONFIG_ECDSA=y
> +CONFIG_ECDSA_VERIFY=y
> diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile
> index d54abb7341..65821d9db4 100644
> --- a/test/dm/Makefile
> +++ b/test/dm/Makefile
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_CLK) += clk.o clk_ccf.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC) += cros_ec.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DEVRES) += devres.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_VIDEO_MIPI_DSI) += dsi_host.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ECDSA_VERIFY) += ecdsa.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DM_ETH) += eth.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_FIRMWARE) += firmware.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DM_GPIO) += gpio.o
> diff --git a/test/dm/ecdsa.c b/test/dm/ecdsa.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..23d57dd47f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/test/dm/ecdsa.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> +
> +#include <crypto/ecdsa-uclass.h>
> +#include <dm.h>
> +#include <dm/test.h>
> +#include <test/ut.h>
> +#include <u-boot/ecdsa.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Basic test of the ECDSA uclass and ecdsa_verify()
> + *
> + * ECDSA implementations in u-boot are hardware-dependent. Until we have a
> + * software implementation that can be compiled into the sandbox, all we can
> + * test is the uclass support.
> + *
> + * The uclass_get() test is redundant since ecdsa_verify() would also fail.
> We
> + * run both functions in order to isolate the cause more clearly. i.e. is
> + * ecdsa_verify() failing because the UCLASS is absent/broken?
> + */
> +static int dm_test_ecdsa_verify(struct unit_test_state *uts)
> +{
> + const struct ecdsa_ops *ops;
> + struct uclass *ucp;
> +
> + const struct checksum_algo algo = {
> + .checksum_len = 256,
> + };
> +
> + struct image_sign_info info = {
> + .checksum = &algo,
> + };
> +
> + ut_assertok(uclass_get(UCLASS_ECDSA, &ucp));
> + ut_assertnonnull(ucp);
> + ut_assert(ecdsa_verify(&info, NULL, 0, NULL, 0) == -ENODEV);
ut_asserteq(-ENODEV, ...)
blank line before final return
> + return 0;
> +}
> +DM_TEST(dm_test_ecdsa_verify, UT_TESTF_SCAN_PDATA | UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT);
> --
> 2.26.3
>
Regards,
SImon
