[webcrypto] Remove RSA-ES support (3 of 3)

[webcrypto] Remove RSA-ES support (3 of 3)

  * RSA-ES keys that were previously serialized via structured clone will not be readable after this change. Since WebCrypto is behind an experimental flag this breakage is acceptable.

 * Removes some related code. Parameters for generating and importing RSA keys had the notion of being hashed or not. With RSA-ES gone, all of the RSA keys enumerated by the spec are "hashed" (rsa-ssa, rsa-oaep, rsa-pss) so this distinction isn't necessary.

BUG=372920, 245025
R=jochen@chromium.org, jsbell@chromium.org, jww@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=174741

[eroman, 2014-05-13 23:55:05]

This is planned as part of a 3-sided patch:

(1) Remove LayoutTests: https://codereview.chromium.org/285823002/

(2) Remove Chromium-side support: https://codereview.chromium.org/282903002/

(3) Remove Blink-side support (this CL)

[eroman, 2014-05-16 15:08:09]

ping

[jsbell, 2014-05-19 16:54:16]

SSV change LGTM (but I'm not an owner)

[adamk, 2014-05-20 08:17:32]

+jww, perhaps this is something you could take a look at too?

[jww, 2014-05-21 17:19:23]

lgtm, modulo my couple of comments.

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
File Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp:254: Deprecated_RsaKeyTag = 3,
I'm unclear as to why you leave this (and RsaEsPkcs1v1_5Tag) in the enum as
deprecated. It seems like they're used in a very limited number of places, and,
as far as I can tell, aren't persisted anywhere.

And even if it does break something, aren't we not too sad since WebCrypto is
behind an experimental flag?

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp:2242: return false;
If you do leave in Deprecated_RsaKeyTag, shouldn't this be an
ASSERT_NOT_REACHED?

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp:2464: return false;
Same question about ASSERT_NOT_REACHED as above.

[eroman, 2014-05-21 18:17:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
File Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp:254: Deprecated_RsaKeyTag = 3,
On 2014/05/21 17:19:23, jww wrote:
> I'm unclear as to why you leave this (and RsaEsPkcs1v1_5Tag) in the enum as
> deprecated. It seems like they're used in a very limited number of places,
and,
> as far as I can tell, aren't persisted anywhere.
> 
> And even if it does break something, aren't we not too sad since WebCrypto is
> behind an experimental flag?

Done, I removed those.

I thought it would be confusing why a number was missing, I have added a comment
instead. And agree it should be safe to re-use it in the future.

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp:2242: return false;
On 2014/05/21 17:19:23, jww wrote:
> If you do leave in Deprecated_RsaKeyTag, shouldn't this be an
> ASSERT_NOT_REACHED?

No longer applicable.

https://codereview.chromium.org/284973002/diff/40001/Source/bindings/v8/Seria...
Source/bindings/v8/SerializedScriptValue.cpp:2464: return false;
On 2014/05/21 17:19:23, jww wrote:
> Same question about ASSERT_NOT_REACHED as above.

No longer applicable.

[eroman, 2014-05-21 19:08:21]

@jochen: for OWNERS approval (public/platform/* and Source/bindings/*). Thanks!

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2014-05-22 08:40:16]

lgtm

[eroman, 2014-05-23 19:21:23]

The CQ bit was checked by eroman@chromium.org

[eroman, 2014-05-23 19:21:35]

The CQ bit was unchecked by eroman@chromium.org

[eroman, 2014-05-23 19:29:29]

The CQ bit was checked by eroman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-23 19:30:06]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/eroman@chromium.org/284973002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-23 20:46:55]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
Please consider checking whether the failures are real,
and report flakes to chrome-troopers@google.com.
The failing builders are:
  mac_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/mac_blink_rel/builds/8840)
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/8977)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-23 22:05:30]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-23 22:05:31]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_blink_rel on tryserver.blink
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/win_blink_rel/builds/8994)

[eroman, 2014-05-23 22:54:36]

Committed patchset #3 manually as r174726 (presubmit successful).

[eroman, 2014-05-23 23:57:49]

Was reverted due to a bogus "maybe-uninitilized" warning on Android builder [1].

I have made a trivial modification in patchset 5 to address this; will attempt
re-land.

[1] Details on error in:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=372920#c8

[eroman, 2014-05-23 23:57:56]

The CQ bit was checked by eroman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-23 23:58:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/eroman@chromium.org/284973002/120001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-05-24 01:25:00]

Change committed as 174741