linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] crypto: print self-test pass notices in fips mode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200904290924.11005.jarod@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:24:10 -0400
From:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: print self-test pass notices in fips mode

On Wednesday 29 April 2009 09:21:53 Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 09:18:17 Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:21:35PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/crypto/testmgr.c b/crypto/testmgr.c
> > > index 39ffa69..d0cc85c 100644
> > > --- a/crypto/testmgr.c
> > > +++ b/crypto/testmgr.c
> > > @@ -2149,6 +2149,10 @@ notest:
> > >  test_done:
> > >  	if (fips_enabled && rc)
> > >  		panic("%s: %s alg self test failed in fips mode!\n", driver, alg);
> > > +	/* fips mode requires we print out self-test success notices */
> > > +	if (fips_enabled && !rc && strncmp(alg, "ctr(aes", 7))
> > > +		printk(KERN_INFO "alg: self-tests for %s (%s) passed\n",
> > > +		       driver, alg);
> > 
> > What is this strncmp crap for?
> 
> To avoid claiming we successfully self-tested ctr(aes) when its
> not actually directly testable. Was intended to go sort of hand
> in hand with the other patch to suppress 'no self test' messages
> for ctr(aes) when in fips mode. Of course, since at this point,
> we've run ecb(aes), and that's what's suggested as the way to
> test ctr(aes)[*], perhaps we don't need to
> suppress it.
> 
> [*] well, along with the sign-off from the lab that the counter
> code is acceptable

So this might actually be another argument in favor of adding a "this
algo isn't really testable" flag as Neil suggested...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/