refactor(protocol): adjust formatting #358
Conversation
This addresses formatting styles from the previous commit.
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces modifications to the certificate verification process across multiple files in the metadata and protocol packages. The primary changes focus on enhancing the handling of intermediate certificates during attestation verification. The Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant Attestation
participant Metadata
participant CertPool
Client->>Attestation: VerifyAttestation()
Attestation->>Metadata: Verifier(intermediate certs)
Metadata->>CertPool: Create pool with intermediates
CertPool-->>Metadata: Return certificate pool
Metadata-->>Attestation: Return verify options
Attestation->>Attestation: Validate certificate chain
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
protocol/attestation.go (2)
235-238: Consider separating variable declarations for clarity.
Currently, multiple variables are declared in a single block. This can reduce clarity, especially since some of these variables (like parsed, x5c) hold certificates while others (like raw, ok) are simple data holders. Splitting them into separate declarations could make the code more maintainable.Example (no functional change):
- var ( - x5c, parsed *x509.Certificate - x5cis []*x509.Certificate - raw []byte - ok bool - ) + var x5c, parsed *x509.Certificate + var x5cis []*x509.Certificate + var raw []byte + var ok bool
246-257: Validate the certificate type and parsing more thoroughly.
While you check that x5cAny is a []byte, it might be prudent to log or handle unexpected but non-nil certificate entries for better diagnostics.protocol/attestation_tpm.go (1)
408-432: Preallocate the slice to optimize memory usage.
The static analysis tool suggests preallocating “unknown” if we know the approximate size. Although minor, this can improve performance if the method is called frequently.Example fix (assuming the size dimension is known or can be inferred):
-func tpmRemoveEKU(x5c *x509.Certificate) error { - var ( - unknown []asn1.ObjectIdentifier - hasAiK bool - ) +func tpmRemoveEKU(x5c *x509.Certificate) error { + // Pre-allocate unknown with the capacity of x5c.UnknownExtKeyUsage to reduce reallocation + unknown := make([]asn1.ObjectIdentifier, 0, len(x5c.UnknownExtKeyUsage)) + hasAiK := false for _, eku := range x5c.UnknownExtKeyUsage { ...🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
408-408: Consider pre-allocating
unknown(prealloc)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
metadata/metadata.go(1 hunks)protocol/attestation.go(1 hunks)protocol/attestation_tpm.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
protocol/attestation_tpm.go
408-408: Consider pre-allocating unknown
(prealloc)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
protocol/attestation.go (1)
277-283: Ensure the subject and issuer comparison is correct.
You compare CommonName fields to distinguish self-signed from externally signed certs. However, a safer check might involve verifying the full certificate chain, subject DN, or checking the “IsCA” field rather than just checking CommonName fields, which can vary widely.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the certificate validation logic to make a more informed decision.
Let me check the metadata statement verification logic to understand how the certificate chain is handled.
Let me check one final piece to understand how the certificate chain validation is implemented.
Based on the gathered context, I can now provide a final response:
The current certificate validation approach is secure and appropriate
The code shows a proper multi-layered certificate validation approach:
- The CommonName comparison is just an initial check to identify self-signed certificates
- The actual certificate validation is performed through the metadata statement verifier (
entry.MetadataStatement.Verifier(x5cis)) - A full certificate chain validation is performed using
x5c.Verify(verifier)which returns an error if the chain is invalid - The code properly handles attestation types through
AttestationTypes.HasBasicFull()
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Searching for other certificate comparisons in the code
rg -A 5 $'Subject\\.CommonName'
Length of output: 982
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for certificate validation related code
rg -A 10 "func.*Verify" protocol/
Length of output: 16811
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for metadata statement verification and certificate chain validation
rg -A 10 "MetadataStatement.*Verifier" protocol/
Length of output: 610
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for x5c certificate verification implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($x *x509.Certificate) Verify($opts $_) ($_, error) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 89
metadata/metadata.go (1)
322-341: Great addition of certificate intermediates support.
Accepting x5cis and creating an intermediates pool ensures more robust certificate validation, especially when dealing with chained certificates. The changes look well-structured.
This addresses formatting styles from the previous commit.