linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] crypto: skcipher: Remove VLA usage

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:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:30:36 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
        Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com>,
        Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        Arnaud Ebalard <arno@...isbad.org>,
        Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...il.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] crypto: skcipher: Remove VLA usage

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> RFC follow-up to https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAGXu5j+bpLK=EQ9LHkO8V=sdaQwt==6fbGhgn2Vi1E9_WxSGRQ@mail.gmail.com
>
> The core API changes:
>
>         struct crypto_sync_skcipher
>         crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher()
>         crypto_free_sync_skcipher()
>         crypto_sync_skcipher_setkey()
>         skcipher_request_set_sync_tfm()
>         SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK type check
>
> and a single user's refactoring as an example:
>
>         drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto.h
>         drivers/crypto/ccp/ccp-crypto-aes-xts.c
>
> Does this look correct? If so, I can continue and do the other 60
> instances of SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK().

Herbert, how does this look? Should I do the other 60 instances? I'd
really like to get this finished up. :)

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security