linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] cifs: Remove locking in smb2_verify_signature() when calculating SMB2/SMB3 signature on receiving packets

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <877dz6njm4.fsf@suse.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:05:23 +0100
From:   Aurélien Aptel <aaptel@...e.com>
To:     Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
        "longli\@linuxonhyperv.com" <longli@...uxonhyperv.com>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "linux-cifs\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "samba-technical\@lists.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cifs: Remove locking in smb2_verify_signature() when
 calculating SMB2/SMB3 signature on receiving packets

Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com> writes:
>>need for locks). AFAIK there's no state that need to be kept between
>>signing/encrypting calls beside the access to keys. Is it that expensive to
>>create/release?
>
> My guess is that crypto_alloc_shash() is a heavy call?

AFAIK there's no IO, just some memory allocation. Could be faster than
locking. Something to look into, maybe...

Cheers,
-- 
Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team
GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97  8C99 03C8 A49B 521B D5D3
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, DE
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah HRB 247165 (AG München)