linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/10] crypto: factor async completion for general use

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: <20170511080921.GB7533@zzz>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2017 01:09:21 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
To:     Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Ofir Drang <ofir.drang@....com>,
        Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad.benyossef@....com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-ima-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/10] crypto: factor async completion for general use

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:29:47AM +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> > With regards to the wait being uninterruptible, I agree that this should be the
> > default behavior, because I think users waiting for specific crypto requests are
> > generally not prepared to handle the wait actually being interrupted.  After
> > interruption the crypto operation will still proceed in the background, and it
> > will use buffers which the caller has in many cases already freed.  However, I'd
> > suggest taking a close look at anything that was actually doing an interruptible
> > wait before, to see whether it was a bug or intentional (or "doesn't matter").
> >
> > And yes there could always be a crypto_wait_req_interruptible() introduced if
> > some users need it.
> 
> So this one was a bit of a shocker.  I though the  _interruptible use
> sites seemed
> wrong in the sense of being needless. However, after reading your feedback and
> reviewing the code I'm pretty sure every single one of them (including
> the one I've
> added in dm-verity-target.c this merge window)  are down right dangerous and
> can cause random data corruption... so thanks for pointing this out!
> 
> I though of this patch set as a "make the code pretty" for 4.13 kind
> of patch set.
> Looks like it's a bug fix now, maybe even stable material.
> 
> Anyway, I'll roll a v2 and we'll see.
> 

Any that are called only by kernel threads would theoretically be safe since
kernel threads don't ordinarily receive signals.  But I think that at least the
drbg and gcm waits can be reached by user threads, since they can be called via
algif_rng and algif_aead respectively.

I recommend putting any important fixes first, so they can be backported without
depending on crypto_wait_req().

Eric