linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] big key: get rid of stack array allocation

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:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:51:04 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     ebiggers3@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, Jason@...c4.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] big key: get rid of stack array allocation

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:46:38PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > +	if (unlikely(crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != GCM_AES_IV_SIZE)) {
> > > > +		WARN(1, "big key algorithm changed?");
> 
> Please avoid using WARN() WARN_ON() etc.
> syzbot would catch it and panic() due to panic_on_warn == 1.

But it is really a programming bug in this case (and it seems better
than BUG()...). Isn't this exactly the sort of case we want to catch?

Tycho