Additional wycheproof test cases for secp256k1
XuJiandong opened this issue · 5 comments
From the tool wycheproof2blb
the test case for secp256k1 only includes ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_test.json.
But in original wycheproof folder, there are many others:
❯ find . | grep secp256k1 | grep ecdsa
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha3_512_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha512_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_shake256_p1363_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_shake128_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_bitcoin_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_p1363_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_shake256_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha512_p1363_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha3_256_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_shake128_p1363_test.json
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_test.json
./testvectors/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha3_512_test.json
./testvectors/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha512_test.json
./testvectors/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_p1363_test.json
./testvectors/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha512_p1363_test.json
./testvectors/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha3_256_test.json
./testvectors/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_test.json
Is it necessary to include all the test cases? Or can we prioritize and include only the most critical ones?
Those all look like ECDSA with unusual alternative hash functions.
If you would like to work towards including those, that's okay, but it seems like a lot of work and not something I'm particularly interested in working on. I also believe it would also transcend what is possible with our existing macros for writing Wycheproof tests.
It seems the folder with "v1" is the new one. So we can simply focus on all test cases in testvectors_v1. After filtering out unusual hash function test cases, we have the following list:
./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_bitcoin_test.json./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_p1363_test.json./testvectors_v1/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_test.json
Since the last one is already included, we can add the two extra cases to secp256k1. Is it worth doing? I can submit a PR for it.
P.S. What is "our existing macros"? Could you give a link to it?
Sure, that sounds good. The new_wycheproof_test! macro is defined here: https://github.com/RustCrypto/signatures/blob/ff9a205/ecdsa/src/dev.rs#L147
@XuJiandong is this complete then?