linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] crypto: AF_ALG -- add asymmetric cipher interface

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, 9 Jun 2016 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
cc:	Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
	Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	marcel@...tmann.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] crypto: AF_ALG -- add asymmetric cipher
 interface


On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Stephan Mueller wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 9. Juni 2016, 11:18:04 schrieb Mat Martineau:
>
> Hi Mat,
>
>>> Or is your concern that the user space interface restricts things too much
>>> and thus prevents a valid use case?
>>
>> The latter - my primary concern is the constraint this places on userspace
>> by forcing larger buffer sizes than might be necessary for the operation.
>> struct akcipher_request has separate members for src_len and dst_len, and
>> dst_len is documented as needing "to be at least as big as the expected
>> result depending on the operation". Not the maximum result, the expected
>> result. It's also documented that the cipher will generate an error if
>> dst_len is insufficient and update the value with the required size.
>>
>> I'm updating some userspace TLS code that worked with an earlier, unmerged
>> patch set for AF_ALG akcipher (from last year). The read calls with
>> shorter buffers were the main porting problem.
>
> I see -- are you proposing to drop that check entirely?

Yes.


Best regards,

--
Mat Martineau
Intel OTC