Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
TLS x509 for Websocket #145
TLS x509 for Websocket #145
Changes from all commits
0680805
8583165
f294676
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can be useful to know which key it was:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps for visibility we define this in params.go:
Then here we do:
I'd do the same for
Organization
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we wrap the error here? Especially if we change the above to return public key and an error - we'd have two paths that return an error - it's useful to have context
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer to have this return
crypto.PublicKey
and an error than have this panic.Instead in default I'd do
return nil, fmt.Errorf("unsupported key type: %T", key)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd change these
asserts
torequires
. That way it's consistent with the codebase and it'll rarely be useful to continue the test after the first error.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would be good to have tests for other types of keys too - but I can add that in a separate PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This here line relies on us having a key. However the key is optional - we could generate a libp2p identity on the fly.
If we start the node with
node --websocket true
(without--private-key
) - this will blow up.What I'm thinking:
we do:
host.New
fails if it does not have a key.main()
function of the node, we take care of a) reading the key from disk - if the private key is specified, or b) we generate an in-memory key that we will use for the current invocation. In either case we pass the key to thehost
. Then we can rely on having the key.What do you think?