linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:41:46 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Hannes Frederic Sowa' <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
CC:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Crypto Mailing List" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable
 function

From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> Sent: 15 December 2016 14:57
> On 15.12.2016 14:56, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> >> Sent: 15 December 2016 12:50
> >> On 15.12.2016 13:28, David Laight wrote:
> >>> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
> >>>> Sent: 15 December 2016 12:23
> >>> ...
> >>>> Hmm? Even the Intel ABI expects alignment of unsigned long long to be 8
> >>>> bytes on 32 bit. Do you question that?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>> The linux ABI for x86 (32 bit) only requires 32bit alignment for u64 (etc).
> >>
> >> Hmm, u64 on 32 bit is unsigned long long and not unsigned long. Thus I
> >> am actually not sure if the ABI would say anything about that (sorry
> >> also for my wrong statement above).
> >>
> >> Alignment requirement of unsigned long long on gcc with -m32 actually
> >> seem to be 8.
> >
> > It depends on the architecture.
> > For x86 it is definitely 4.
> 
> May I ask for a reference?

Ask anyone who has had to do compatibility layers to support 32bit
binaries on 64bit systems.

> I couldn't see unsigned long long being
> mentioned in the ia32 abi spec that I found. I agree that those accesses
> might be synthetically assembled by gcc and for me the alignment of 4
> would have seemed natural. But my gcc at least in 32 bit mode disagrees
> with that.

Try (retyped):

echo 'struct { long a; long long b; } s; int bar { return sizeof s; }' >foo.c
gcc [-m32] -O2 -S foo.c; cat foo.s

And look at what is generated.

> Right now ipv6 addresses have an alignment of 4. So we couldn't even
> naturally pass them to siphash but would need to copy them around, which
> I feel like a source of bugs.

That is more of a problem on systems that don't support misaligned accesses.
Reading the 64bit values with two explicit 32bit reads would work.
I think you can get gcc to do that by adding an aligned(4) attribute to the
structure member.

	David