[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABBYNZKuXtf5Z_zHG1h2c6_0to8o2MqvmQvt-8mmX0hdb3_B9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:19:50 -0700
From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>
To: Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-bluetooth <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
CrosBT Upstreaming <chromeos-bluetooth-upstreaming@...omium.org>,
Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...omium.org>,
Alain Michaud <alainm@...omium.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Bluetooth: Enforce key size of 16 bytes on FIPS level
Hi Archie,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:37 AM Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 01:13, Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> <luiz.dentz@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Archie,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 1:31 AM Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...omium.org>
> > >
> > > According to the spec Ver 5.2, Vol 3, Part C, Sec 5.2.2.8:
> > > Device in security mode 4 level 4 shall enforce:
> > > 128-bit equivalent strength for link and encryption keys required
> > > using FIPS approved algorithms (E0 not allowed, SAFER+ not allowed,
> > > and P-192 not allowed; encryption key not shortened)
> > >
> > > This patch rejects connection with key size below 16 for FIPS level
> > > services.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Archie Pusaka <apusaka@...omium.org>
> > > Reviewed-by: Alain Michaud <alainm@...omium.org>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 7 ++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> > > index ade83e224567..306616ec26e6 100644
> > > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c
> > > @@ -1515,8 +1515,13 @@ static bool l2cap_check_enc_key_size(struct hci_conn *hcon)
> > > * that have no key size requirements. Ensure that the link is
> > > * actually encrypted before enforcing a key size.
> > > */
> > > + int min_key_size = hcon->hdev->min_enc_key_size;
> > > +
> > > + if (hcon->sec_level == BT_SECURITY_FIPS)
> > > + min_key_size = 16;
> > > +
> > > return (!test_bit(HCI_CONN_ENCRYPT, &hcon->flags) ||
> > > - hcon->enc_key_size >= hcon->hdev->min_enc_key_size);
> > > + hcon->enc_key_size >= min_key_size);
> >
> > While this looks fine to me, it looks like this should be placed
> > elsewhere since it takes an hci_conn and it is not L2CAP specific.
>
> From what I understood, it is permissible to use AES-CCM P-256
> encryption with key length < 16 when encrypting the link, but such a
> connection does not satisfy security level 4, and therefore must not
> be given access to level 4 services. However, I think it is
> permissible to give them access to level 3 services or below.
>
> Should I use l2cap chan->sec_level for this purpose? I'm kind of lost
> on the difference between hcon->sec_level and chan->sec_level.
The chan->sec_level is L2CAP channel required sec_level while
hcon->sec_level is the current secure level in effect, at some point I
guess we assign the hcon->sec_level with chan->sec_level but Im not
sure if that has already happened here or not.
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void l2cap_do_start(struct l2cap_chan *chan)
> > > --
> > > 2.28.0.681.g6f77f65b4e-goog
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luiz Augusto von Dentz
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists