linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] crypto: chacha20 - Fix keystream alignment for chacha20

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: <CAKv+Gu-6inNDCPq0_2Y4ZS27xg7Su1-qTvLfQ4sBKozYNTNqzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:06:08 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc:     "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] crypto: chacha20 - Fix keystream alignment for chacha20_block()

On 22 November 2017 at 21:29, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:51:57PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 22 November 2017 at 19:51, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
>> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
>> >
>> > When chacha20_block() outputs the keystream block, it uses 'u32' stores
>> > directly.  However, the callers (crypto/chacha20_generic.c and
>> > drivers/char/random.c) declare the keystream buffer as a 'u8' array,
>> > which is not guaranteed to have the needed alignment.
>> >
>> > Fix it by having both callers declare the keystream as a 'u32' array.
>> > For now this is preferable to switching over to the unaligned access
>> > macros because chacha20_block() is only being used in cases where we can
>> > easily control the alignment (stack buffers).
>> >
>>
>> Given this paragraph, I think we agree the correct way to fix this
>> would be to make chacha20_block() adhere to its prototype, so if we
>> deviate from that, there should be a good reason. On which
>> architecture that cares about alignment is this expected to result in
>> a measurable performance benefit?
>>
>
> Well, variables on the stack tend to be 4 or even 8-byte aligned anyway, so this
> change probably doesn't make a difference in practice currently.  But it still
> should be fixed, in case it does become a problem.
>

Agreed.

> We could certainly leave the type as u8 array and use put_unaligned_le32()
> instead; that would be a simpler change.  But that would be slower on
> architectures where a potentially-unaligned access requires multiple
> instructions.
>

The access itself would be slower, yes. But given the amount of work
performed in chacha20_block(), I seriously doubt that would actually
matter in practice.