> On Apr 8, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 21:53 -0400, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>> Parse the X.509 Basic Constraints. The basic constraints extension
>> identifies whether the subject of the certificate is a CA.
>>
>> BasicConstraints ::= SEQUENCE {
>> cA BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
>> pathLenConstraint INTEGER (0..MAX) OPTIONAL }
>>
>> If the CA is true, store it in the x509_certificate. This will be used
>> in a follow on patch that requires knowing if the public key is a CA.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c | 9 +++++++++
>> crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c
>> index 2899ed80bb18..30f7374ea9c0 100644
>> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c
>> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c
>> @@ -583,6 +583,15 @@ int x509_process_extension(void *context, size_t hdrlen,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> + if (ctx->last_oid == OID_basicConstraints) {
>> + if (vlen < 2 || v[0] != (ASN1_CONS_BIT | ASN1_SEQ))
>> + return -EBADMSG;
>> + if (v[1] != vlen - 2)
>> + return -EBADMSG;
>> + if (vlen >= 4 && v[1] != 0 && v[2] == ASN1_BOOL && v[3] == 1)
>> + ctx->cert->is_root_ca = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h
>> index 97a886cbe01c..dc45df9f6594 100644
>> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h
>> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h
>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ struct x509_certificate {
>> bool self_signed; /* T if self-signed (check unsupported_sig too) */
>> bool unsupported_sig; /* T if signature uses unsupported crypto */
>> bool blacklisted;
>> + bool is_root_ca; /* T if basic constraints CA is set */
>
> There's no need to prefix variables with "is_". Similar to the
> variable "self_signed" simply name this variable "root_ca".
I’ll change this name (and also the one you identified in the 3rd patch) in the next
round, thanks.
