[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ2Z=YP+fNsvy+6a_BpC1ibZf6tOzZuPHk=Qx1qNVvOZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:31:09 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
Lars Persson <larper@...s.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, qat-linux@...el.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] crypto: skcipher: Remove VLA usage for SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 09:45:09AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Which are likely to be wrapped together? Should I take this to 512 or
>> something else?
>
> The situation is similar to ahash. While they're using the same
> skcipher interface, the underlying algorithms must all be
> synchronous. In fact, if they're not then they're buggy.
>
> Therefore it makes no sense to use the general skcipher request
> size as a threshold. You should look at synchronous skcipher
> algorithms only.
I might be catching on... so from this list, I should only "count" the
synchronous ones as being wrappable? The skcipher list is actually
pretty short:
crypto/cryptd.c: crypto_skcipher_set_reqsize(
crypto/cryptd.c- tfm, sizeof(struct
cryptd_skcipher_request_ctx));
The above is, AIUI, unwrapped, so I only need to count sizeof(struct
cryptd_skcipher_request_ctx)?
These are "simple" wrappers:
crypto/lrw.c: crypto_skcipher_set_reqsize(tfm,
crypto_skcipher_reqsize(cipher) +
crypto/lrw.c- sizeof(struct rctx));
crypto/simd.c- reqsize = sizeof(struct skcipher_request);
crypto/simd.c- reqsize += crypto_skcipher_reqsize(&cryptd_tfm->base);
crypto/simd.c: crypto_skcipher_set_reqsize(tfm, reqsize);
crypto/xts.c: crypto_skcipher_set_reqsize(tfm,
crypto_skcipher_reqsize(child) +
crypto/xts.c- sizeof(struct rctx));
But what are the "legitimate" existing crypto_skcipher_reqsize() values here?
These are "complex" wrappers, with cts even adding blocksize to the mix...
crypto/ctr.c- align = crypto_skcipher_alignmask(tfm);
crypto/ctr.c- align &= ~(crypto_tfm_ctx_alignment() - 1);
crypto/ctr.c- reqsize = align + sizeof(struct crypto_rfc3686_req_ctx) +
crypto/ctr.c- crypto_skcipher_reqsize(cipher);
crypto/ctr.c: crypto_skcipher_set_reqsize(tfm, reqsize);
crypto/cts.c- align = crypto_skcipher_alignmask(tfm);
crypto/cts.c- bsize = crypto_skcipher_blocksize(cipher);
crypto/cts.c- reqsize = ALIGN(sizeof(struct crypto_cts_reqctx) +
crypto/cts.c- crypto_skcipher_reqsize(cipher),
crypto/cts.c- crypto_tfm_ctx_alignment()) +
crypto/cts.c- (align & ~(crypto_tfm_ctx_alignment() - 1)) + bsize;
crypto/cts.c-
crypto/cts.c: crypto_skcipher_set_reqsize(tfm, reqsize);
What values might be expected here? It seems the entire blocksize
needs to be included as well...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists