linux-kernel - Re: vmalloced stacks and scatterwalk_map_and

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: <20161103211207.GB63852@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:12:07 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: vmalloced stacks and scatterwalk_map_and_copy()

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 01:30:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> Also, Herbert, it seems like the considerable majority of the crypto
> code is acting on kernel virtual memory addresses and does software
> processing.  Would it perhaps make sense to add a kvec-based or
> iov_iter-based interface to the crypto code?  I bet it would be quite
> a bit faster and it would make crypto on stack buffers work directly.

I'd like to hear Herbert's opinion on this too, but as I understand it, if a
symmetric cipher API operating on virtual addresses was added, similar to the
existing "shash" API it would only allow software processing.  Whereas with the
current API you can request a transform and use it the same way regardless of
whether the crypto framework has chosen a software or hardware implementation,
or a combination thereof.  If this wasn't a concern then I expect using virtual
addresses would indeed simplify things a lot, at least for users not already
working with physical memory (struct page).

Either way, in the near term it looks like 4.9 will be released with the new
behavior that encryption/decryption is not supported on stack buffers.
Separately from the scatterwalk_map_and_copy() issue, today I've found two
places in the filesystem-level encryption code that do encryption on stack
buffers and therefore hit the 'BUG_ON(!virt_addr_valid(buf));' in sg_set_buf().
I will be sending patches to fix these, but I suspect there may be more crypto
API users elsewhere that have this same problem.

Eric