linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 6/6] crypto: AF_ALG

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]

Message-ID: <e011a955-70c1-0419-9e2d-dea75d319da3@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:27:04 -0700
From:	Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>
To:	Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	smueller@...onox.de, 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 v8 6/6] crypto: AF_ALG - add support for key_id

Hi Mat,
On 06/29/2016 11:43 AM, Mat Martineau wrote:
>> +    ret = verify_signature(key, &sig);
>> +    if (!ret) {
>> +        req->dst_len = sizeof(digest);
> 
> I think you fixed the BUG_ON() problem but there's still an issue with
> the handling of the digest. Check the use of sig->digest in
> public_key_verify_signature(), it's an input not an output. Right now it
> looks like 20 uninitialized bytes are compared with the computed digest
> within verify_signature, and then the unintialized bytes are copied to
> req->dst here.
> 
> With some modifications to public_key_verify_signature you could get the
> digest you need, but I'm not sure if verification with a hardware key
> (like a key in a TPM) can or can not provide the digest needed. Maybe
> this is why the verify_signature hook in struct asymmetric_key_subtype
> is optional.
> 
>> +        scatterwalk_map_and_copy(digest, req->dst, 0, req->dst_len, 1);
>> +    } 

So it looks like the only thing that we need to return to the user in
this case is the return code. Do you agree?
Thanks,
-- 
TS