linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] X.509: Parse public key parameters from x509 for akcipher

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:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:11:43 +0300
From:   Vitaly Chikunov <vt@...linux.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] X.509: Parse public key parameters from x509 for
 akcipher

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:04:49AM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> Herbert,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:14:44PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 09:48:40AM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > > 
> > > If we pass SubjectPublicKeyInfo into set_pub_key itself (making
> > > set_params not needed) we will break ABI and compatibility with RSA
> > > drivers, because whole SubjectPublicKeyInfo is not expected by the
> > 
> > This compatibility does not matter.  We can always add translating
> > layers into the crypto API to deal with this.  The only ABI that
> > matters is the one to user-space.
> 
> It seems that you insist on set_params to be removed and both key and
> params to be passed into set_{pub,priv}_key. This means reworking all
> existing RSA drivers and callers, right? Can you please confirm that
> huge rework to avoid misunderstanding?
> 
> I think to pass SubjectPublicKeyInfo into set_*_key would be overkill,
> because TPM drivers may not have it and we would need BER encoder just
> for that.
> 
> So, probably, something simple like length, key data, length, params data
> will be enough?

Or maybe we could just add additional argument to set_{pub,priv}_key?
(If you agree to change that ABI anyway).

> Thanks,