be40c4d Fixup for C90 mixed declarations. (Gregory Maxwell)
8b3841c fix bug in fread() failure check (Don Viszneki)
cddef0c tests: add warning message when /dev/urandom fails (Don Viszneki)
Pull request description:
I've made two small changes to `src/tests.c` circa random seed generation.
Added a warning when `/dev/urandom` fails, mostly to defend against the case that someone should use the code verbatim, but also to enhance its illustrative power.
Also I fixed a bug with how the return value of `fread()` was being evaluated. In fact, `/dev/urandom` was never being applied before as the check on the return value of `fread()` always failed!
Tree-SHA512: 239dbe8316220c2f0e5b370bf9a18f78196e96cc4a7edea58cf2521b2c9cbc8da065be96aa859f90324d57e388d30f7670ce6bc1cca52e5162e5ca66b1a55b34
Before this commit secp256k1_context_randomize called illegal_callback
when called on a context not initialized for signing. This is not
documented. Moreover, it is not desirable because non-signing contexts
may use randomization in the future.
This commit makes secp256k1_context_randomize a noop in this case. This
is safe because the context cannot be used for signing anyway.
This fixes#573 and it fixesrust-bitcoin/rust-secp256k1#82.
the two middle arguments to fread() are easily confused, and cause the
checking of return value to fail incorrectly (and possibly succeed
incorrectly.)
82a96e4 tests: Make sure we get the requested number of bytes from /dev/urandom (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Make sure we get the requested number of bytes from `/dev/urandom`.
Tree-SHA512: 1b035942fd2a6ee2423fb2a2a0a0f294682c51434f86e5c106fb493d77f45aa8070662190aca6441fe389b8cdcc132d432517b8e826be2ac530a1511cd0c8919
The only reason OpenSSL 1.1 was not supported was the removal of direct
access to r and s in ECDSA_SIG. This commit adds a simplified version of
ECDSA_SIG_get0 for < 1.1 that can be used like ECDSA_SIG_get0 in >= 1.1
These were generated by testing more than 10^12 random test vectors
for coverage on instrumented (comparison operator outcomes) 32-bit
and 64-bit code, plus additional edge condition requirements (e.g.
inputs of 0, 1, -1) and then solving a minimum set cover problem.
The required responses were generated with Sage.
This significantly improves the lcov branch coverage report and
makes the tests much more sensitive to mutation testing of the
scalar code.
The challenges and responses are in the form of pairs of scalars:
C1 * C2 == R1
(C1 * C2) * (1 / C2) == C1
C2 * (1 / C2) == 1
C1 * C1 == R2
C1^2 == R2
