linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: testmgr - use generic algs making test vecs

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: <20200225194551.GA114977@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:45:51 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ofir Drang <ofir.drang@....com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: testmgr - use generic algs making test vecs

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 05:48:33PM +0200, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Use generic algs to produce inauthentic AEAD messages,
> otherwise we are running the risk of using an untested
> code to produce the test messages.
> 
> As this code is only used in developer only extended tests
> any cycles/runtime costs are negligible.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
> Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>

It's intentional to use the same implementation to generate the inauthentic AEAD
messages, because it allows the inauthentic AEAD input tests to run even if the
generic implementation is unavailable.

> @@ -2337,8 +2338,42 @@ static int test_aead_inauthentic_inputs(struct aead_extra_tests_ctx *ctx)
>  {
>  	unsigned int i;
>  	int err;
> +	struct crypto_aead *tfm = ctx->tfm;
> +	const char *algname = crypto_aead_alg(tfm)->base.cra_name;
> +	const char *driver = ctx->driver;
> +	const char *generic_driver = ctx->test_desc->generic_driver;
> +	char _generic_driver[CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME];
> +	struct crypto_aead *generic_tfm = NULL;
> +	struct aead_request *generic_req = NULL;
> +
> +	if (!generic_driver) {
> +		err = build_generic_driver_name(algname, _generic_driver);
> +		if (err)
> +			return err;
> +		generic_driver = _generic_driver;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!strcmp(generic_driver, driver) == 0) {
> +		/* Already the generic impl? */
> +
> +		generic_tfm = crypto_alloc_aead(generic_driver, 0, 0);

I think you meant the condition to be 'if (strcmp(generic_driver, driver) != 0)'
and for the comment to be "Not already the generic impl?".

> +		if (IS_ERR(generic_tfm)) {
> +			err = PTR_ERR(generic_tfm);
> +			pr_err("alg: aead: error allocating %s (generic impl of %s): %d\n",
> +			generic_driver, algname, err);
> +			return err;
> +		}

This means the test won't run if the generic implementation is unavailable.
Is there any particular reason to impose that requirement?

You mentioned a concern about the implementation being "untested", but it
actually already passed test_aead() before getting to test_aead_extra().

We could also just move test_aead_inauthentic_inputs() to below
test_aead_vs_generic_impl() so that it runs last.

- Eric