Add CRL Lints for the ReasonCode extension from the baseline requirements and RFC 5280 #715
Conversation
54fa290
to
d871b51
Compare
…ents and RFC 5280.
v3/lints/cabf_br/lint_cabf_crl_reason_code_not_critical_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
v3/testdata/crlReasonCodeCrit.pem
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just because I was thinking the same thing when creating my current PR (#713 ), do you think it would help keep the test data a bit easier to navigate if you added all these CRLs under a 'crl' subdirectory in testdata?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably? Let's consider moving them in a separate PR though since there already is another CRL Lint in here already.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (l *crlReasonCodeNotCritical) CheckApplies(c *x509.RevocationList) bool { | ||
| for _, c := range c.RevokedCertificates { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if it'd be easier to just return true in place of this loop, or if there really must be something in here you could return something like c.RevokedCertificates > 0. If it returns true then part of the CRL has been iterated over twice, if it returns false then all of the CRL has been iterated over once which might as well happen while executing the lint?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fair. I'd say premature optimization, but for the size of CRLs I think it's worth it.
Co-authored-by: Rob <[email protected]>
|
Any other thoughts on this PR? |
BRs: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/main/docs/BR.md#722-crl-and-crl-entry-extensions
RFC 5280: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5280#section-5.3.1
Before I mark this as ready for review, I'll need to re-read what I've written to reduce the toil on maintainers.