Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

This is in aid of reusing this code to obtain secure time.

BUG=589700
Committed: https://crrev.com/bb61b52a6c356161d5c403db7809a21d79b0b5bc
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#381836}

[mab, 2016-03-16 21:14:11]

Description was changed from

==========
Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

BUG=589700
==========

to

==========
Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

This is in aid of reusing this code to obtain secure time.

BUG=589700
==========

[mab, 2016-03-16 21:14:11]

mab@google.com changed reviewers:
+ waffles@chromium.org

[mab, 2016-03-16 22:04:49]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/BUILD.gn (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/BUILD.gn:5: source_set("crx_file") {
git chose this ancestor for me.  I don't suppose you know how to fix it?

[Sorin Jianu, 2016-03-16 22:22:46]

sorin@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ sorin@chromium.org

[Sorin Jianu, 2016-03-16 22:22:47]

lgtm

Thank you!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/OWNERS:2: cpu@chromium.org
cpu@ might be happy to not be an OWNER anymore.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h:27: // Each Ecdsa object represents a
single update check in
idea: fix the terminology so that it refers to protocol messages instead of
update checks? 

In theory, we can sign and verify any protocol message even it is not an update
check, such as a ping, or a time check.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h:30: class Ecdsa {
Maybe rename to EcdsaSigner?

[mab, 2016-03-16 22:49:57]

mab@google.com changed reviewers:
+ jochen@chromium.org

[mab, 2016-03-16 22:50:35]

+jochen for components change

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/OWNERS:2: cpu@chromium.org
Done; should I remove him from update_client/OWNERS too?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h:27: // Each Ecdsa object represents a
single update check in
Good idea.  I rewrote all the instances I could find that referred to updates or
update checks.

I went with the term "ping" which I've heard used in Chrome, rather than
"protocol message" (which makes me think of protobufs), but happy to use
"protocol message" if that is the right terminology.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h:30: class Ecdsa {
That's a bit tricky: as documented on |SignRequest|, this class stores
per-request state, which isn't what I'd expect from something named "signer".  I
could call it |EcdsaRequest|, but that's sort of not right either, since
|query_params| are an output parameter, rather than stored internally.

tl;dr I kinda think no nouns are quite right so I am tempted to leave alone. 
But, happy to do it if you feel it's the right thing.

[Sorin Jianu, 2016-03-16 23:05:55]

lgtm

Thank you!

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/OWNERS:2: cpu@chromium.org
On 2016/03/16 22:50:35, mab wrote:
> Done; should I remove him from update_client/OWNERS too?

It is not a big deal, my suggestion was to not make him an owner for new code.
cpu@, our master, has left Chromium to work on other things.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h:27: // Each Ecdsa object represents a
single update check in
On 2016/03/16 22:50:35, mab wrote:
> Good idea.  I rewrote all the instances I could find that referred to updates
or
> update checks.
> 
> I went with the term "ping" which I've heard used in Chrome, rather than
> "protocol message" (which makes me think of protobufs), but happy to use
> "protocol message" if that is the right terminology.

Acknowledged.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/ecdsa.h:30: class Ecdsa {
On 2016/03/16 22:50:35, mab wrote:
> That's a bit tricky: as documented on |SignRequest|, this class stores
> per-request state, which isn't what I'd expect from something named "signer". 
I
> could call it |EcdsaRequest|, but that's sort of not right either, since
> |query_params| are an output parameter, rather than stored internally.
> 
> tl;dr I kinda think no nouns are quite right so I am tempted to leave alone. 
> But, happy to do it if you feel it's the right thing.

Acknowledged.

[waffles, 2016-03-16 23:16:55]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/BUILD.gn (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/BUILD.gn:5: source_set("crx_file") {
On 2016/03/16 22:04:49, mab wrote:
> git chose this ancestor for me.  I don't suppose you know how to fix it?

Not sure how to fix it, but I wouldn't worry about it.

[Sorin Jianu, 2016-03-16 23:19:51]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
File components/client_update_protocol/BUILD.gn (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1805263002/diff/80001/components/client_updat...
components/client_update_protocol/BUILD.gn:5: source_set("crx_file") {
On 2016/03/16 23:16:55, waffles wrote:
> On 2016/03/16 22:04:49, mab wrote:
> > git chose this ancestor for me.  I don't suppose you know how to fix it?
> 
> Not sure how to fix it, but I wouldn't worry about it.

It could be related to the similarity index. I agree that it does not matter and
we could move on.

[mab, 2016-03-17 17:27:06]

mab@google.com changed reviewers:
+ caitkp@chromium.org
- jochen@chromium.org

[mab, 2016-03-17 17:27:34]

-jochen +caitkp for /components/, who has a less loaded review queue and is in
this time zone.  :-)

[Cait (Slow), 2016-03-17 17:47:01]

components/ changes lgtm

[mab, 2016-03-17 20:34:14]

The CQ bit was checked by mab@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 20:34:47]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1805263002/100001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1805263002/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 20:44:49]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 20:44:50]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[mab, 2016-03-17 20:49:33]

mab@google.com changed reviewers:
+ davidben@chromium.org

[mab, 2016-03-17 20:49:47]

Whoops.  +davidben for /crypto/

[davidben, 2016-03-17 20:54:03]

DEPS lgtm

[mab, 2016-03-17 21:12:50]

The CQ bit was checked by mab@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 21:13:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1805263002/100001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1805263002/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 23:37:32]

Description was changed from

==========
Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

This is in aid of reusing this code to obtain secure time.

BUG=589700
==========

to

==========
Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

This is in aid of reusing this code to obtain secure time.

BUG=589700
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 23:37:33]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 23:39:01]

Description was changed from

==========
Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

This is in aid of reusing this code to obtain secure time.

BUG=589700
==========

to

==========
Move CUP to new component client_update_protocol

This is in aid of reusing this code to obtain secure time.

BUG=589700

Committed: https://crrev.com/bb61b52a6c356161d5c403db7809a21d79b0b5bc
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#381836}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-03-17 23:39:03]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/bb61b52a6c356161d5c403db7809a21d79b0b5bc
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#381836}