linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net/tls: support SM4 GCM/CCM algorithm

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:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:06:00 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Tianjia Zhang <tianjia.zhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jia Zhang <zhang.jia@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "YiLin . Li" <YiLin.Li@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/tls: support SM4 GCM/CCM algorithm

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:12:42 +0800 Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> +		memcpy(sm4_gcm_info->iv,
> +		       cctx->iv + TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_SALT_SIZE,
> +		       TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_IV_SIZE);
> +		memcpy(sm4_gcm_info->rec_seq, cctx->rec_seq,
> +		       TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_REC_SEQ_SIZE);
> +		release_sock(sk);
> +		if (copy_to_user(optval, sm4_gcm_info, sizeof(*sm4_gcm_info)))
> +			rc = -EFAULT;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +	case TLS_CIPHER_SM4_CCM: {
> +		struct tls12_crypto_info_sm4_ccm *sm4_ccm_info =
> +			container_of(crypto_info,
> +				struct tls12_crypto_info_sm4_ccm, info);
> +
> +		if (len != sizeof(*sm4_ccm_info)) {
> +			rc = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +		lock_sock(sk);
> +		memcpy(sm4_ccm_info->iv,
> +		       cctx->iv + TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_SALT_SIZE,
> +		       TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_IV_SIZE);
> +		memcpy(sm4_ccm_info->rec_seq, cctx->rec_seq,
> +		       TLS_CIPHER_AES_GCM_128_REC_SEQ_SIZE);

Doesn't matter from the functional perspective but perhaps use the SM4
defines rather than the AES ones, since they exist, anyway?

With that fixed feel free to add my ack.