Peter,
Thanks for helping lead me down the right path here.
WRT tinycrypt, the license is quite permissive.
https://github.com/intel/tinycrypt
Also, I'd like your advice - I was thinking for the larger patch that I'd
do it in two commits. The first would be the addition of the tinycrypt
files and the second is the actual changes and additions to support ecdsa
verification. I doubt that's controversial. However when I run a trial
`patman` against the tinycrypt commit, I geta huge number of issues:
*checkpatch.pl <http://checkpatch.pl> found 186 error(s), 380
warning(s), 481 checks(s)*
What's your advice on this? I would tend to think we'd want to /not/ change
the source files directly for such purposes so that updates could be
brought in with greater ease.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Bob Wolff
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:03 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 11:30 Bob Wolff, <bob.wolf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>> I have two separate but related pull requests I'd like to contribute. They
>> both have to do with ECDSA support.
>> - The simple one is a lack of null-pointer check that can cause a crash in
>> certain situations. Easy peasy.
>>
>
> Just send that one on it's own
>
> - The less simple one (and hopefully not too controversial) adds an ecdsa
>> verify driver (UCLASS_ECDSA) which utilizes tinycrypt to do the crypto
>> work.
>>
>
> Do we already use tiny crypt in the project, if not things like license
> need to be taken into account in the context of the GPLv2
>
> Please advise on how best to proceed. Happy to work within the confines of
>> what works best for the larger group.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob Wolff
>>
>
