Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.43%. Comparing base (55e75c4) to head (3ecb741).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #14396   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.42%   98.43%           
=======================================
  Files         161      161           
  Lines       21253    21278   +25     
=======================================
+ Hits        20919    20944   +25     
  Misses        334      334           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Code size report:

   bare-arm:    +0 +0.000% 
minimal x86:    +0 +0.000% 
   unix x64: +3080 +0.368% standard[incl +224(data) +32(bss)]
      stm32:    +0 +0.000% PYBV10
     mimxrt:    +0 +0.000% TEENSY40
        rp2: +1464 +0.167% RPI_PICO_W[incl +24(bss)]
       samd:    +0 +0.000% ADAFRUIT_ITSYBITSY_M4_EXPRESS

@aminop1us since this would be a new feature, could you add a test (see tests/multi_net for examples) so the code coverage can pass, thanks 👍🏼

@aminop1us since this would be a new feature, could you add a test (see tests/multi_net for examples) so the code coverage can pass, thanks 👍🏼

thank for your suggestion, I will add a new test case.

@aminop1us since this would be a new feature, could you add a test (see tests/multi_net for examples) so the code coverage can pass, thanks 👍🏼

I added the test and updated the pull request

please let me know if there is anything else I can do

Thank you for the contribution, this is a good feature that's definitely very useful in embedded contexts.

Please see a prior attempt at this in #5544.

I did not realise that CPython had very recently added support for PSK. That's great... although we did move to a custom tls module so we could implement things like PSK and DTLS (see #10062) without having to wait for CPython do it.

So, since we have our own tls module, we can implement PSK in the best (minimal) way for embedded, ie we don't need to follow CPython's API. Then the ssl wrapper code in micropython-lib can be updated to support the CPython compatible PSK API (which I think requires calling ssl_context.set_ciphers("PSK")).

@aminop1us for your use case, do you find it beneficial for your MicroPython code to use PSK in a CPython compatible way, ie with this callback function? Or would you be just as happy using a custom MicroPython tls PSK API? Eg maybe instead of a callback function one just passes in a dictionary mapping the identity to the key, like ssl_context.psk_keys = my_dict. In your use case is a dict of identity/key pairs good enough, or do you use the full power of a callback?

For reference, this is the PR that added PSK support in CPython: python/cpython#103181

Thank you for the contribution, this is a good feature that's definitely very useful in embedded contexts.

Please see a prior attempt at this in #5544.

I did not realise that CPython had very recently added support for PSK. That's great... although we did move to a custom tls module so we could implement things like PSK and DTLS (see #10062) without having to wait for CPython do it.

So, since we have our own tls module, we can implement PSK in the best (minimal) way for embedded, ie we don't need to follow CPython's API. Then the ssl wrapper code in micropython-lib can be updated to support the CPython compatible PSK API (which I think requires calling ssl_context.set_ciphers("PSK")).

@aminop1us for your use case, do you find it beneficial for your MicroPython code to use PSK in a CPython compatible way, ie with this callback function? Or would you be just as happy using a custom MicroPython tls PSK API? Eg maybe instead of a callback function one just passes in a dictionary mapping the identity to the key, like ssl_context.psk_keys = my_dict. In your use case is a dict of identity/key pairs good enough, or do you use the full power of a callback?

As long as it is possible for us to write a wrapper to be CPython compatible, we are fine with that.

Hey @aminop1us and @dpgeorge I was just inquiring what the status here was and if you wanted anyone to jump in to finish this task out?

Having a PSK would micropython to fully support DTLS which we merged the main work for earlier this year in #15764.

Our project previously implemented a similiar version of this in the way that @dpgeorge described above I think spread through these commits:

• Ribbit-Network@8dbcda5
• Ribbit-Network@f1d2b81
• Ribbit-Network@88ae0b1

If it is useful for someone help complete this, I'm happy to jump in or submit our work in a new PR or whatever is most useful to see this closed out.

Thanks all!

I am assuming the original author does not intend to finish this, so I'll try to pick it up.

I have a draft of the approach suggested by @dpgeorge above here: #17074.

If that looks in line with your suggested approach, I'm happy to clean up the PR (docs, squash commits) so it's ready for merge.

Hey @dpgeorge ! Just wondering if you had a chance to look at the progress in #17074 and if that seems in line with the direction you would like to head?