linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] DRBG: fix maximum value checks on 32 bit systems

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:	Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:36:54 +0200
From:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] DRBG: fix maximum value checks on 32 bit systems

Am Dienstag, 26. August 2014, 16:58:53 schrieb Herbert Xu:

Hi Herbert,

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:52:45AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 26. August 2014, 16:43:43 schrieb Herbert Xu:
> > 
> > Hi Herbert,
> > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:29:45AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > > > The maximum values for additional input string or generated blocks is
> > > > larger than 1<<32. To ensure a sensible value on 32 bit systems,
> > > > return
> > > > SIZE_MAX on 32 bit systems. This value is lower than the maximum
> > > > allowed values defined in SP800-90A. The standard allow lower maximum
> > > > values, but not larger values.
> > > > 
> > > > SIZE_MAX - 1 is used for drbg_max_addtl to allow
> > > > drbg_healthcheck_sanity to check the enforcement of the variable
> > > > without wrapping.
> > > 
> > > This is really ugly but OK.  However, I'm not sure how the sanity
> > > check ever worked.  It would appear that the drbg_generate call in
> > > drbg_healthcheck_sanity should always fail because you explicitly
> > > set addtl->len to drbg_max_addtl + 1, which should trigger the
> > > "DRBG: additional information string too long" error, no?
> > 
> > That is exactly what the test shall do: the test is intended to check
> > whether the maximum values are enforced. And it does that by checking
> > whether an error is returned.
> 
> OK that makes sense.  Patch applied.  Thanks!

I am wondering about the current code in Linus' tree though considering the 
applied patch:

Linus' code contains:

static inline size_t drbg_max_addtl(struct drbg_state *drbg)
{
        return (1UL<<(drbg->core->max_addtllen));
}

static inline size_t drbg_max_requests(struct drbg_state *drbg)
{
        return (1UL<<(drbg->core->max_req));
}

The max_addtllen and max_req are defined in drbg_cores[] in crypto/drbg.c for 
each DRBG type. As size_t on a 32 bit system is 32 bit the bit shifts would 
not work either.

Thus, I am wondering whether the just applied patch would need to go to Linus 
tree too? I would think that the following patch would be in order:

static inline size_t drbg_max_addtl(struct drbg_state *drbg)
{
#if (__BITS_PER_LONG == 32)
        return (SIZE_MAX - 1);
#else
        return (1UL<<(drbg->core->max_addtllen));
#endif
}

static inline size_t drbg_max_requests(struct drbg_state *drbg)
{
#if (__BITS_PER_LONG == 32)
        return SIZE_MAX;
#else
        return (1UL<<(drbg->core->max_req));
#endif
}


-- 
Ciao
Stephan
--
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/