linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] crypto: stm32

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: <CACRpkdYStm_dxo-FMo4Kdw_Lm3iG+xppf7O5W6cxtoiRy1DOsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 00:56:39 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Thomas BOURGOIN <thomas.bourgoin@...s.st.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@...s.st.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] crypto: stm32 - add new algorithms support

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:58 AM Thomas BOURGOIN
<thomas.bourgoin@...s.st.com> wrote:

> Did you run your test only with the patch adding the support for
> STM32MP13 or did you try the whole patch set ?

Both, actually.

> The error is on the test vector number 4, which is an HASH of 64 bytes
> which is exactly the size of a blcok for SHA1.
>
> Did you try to run the test for SHA256 ? (I guess you will see the same
> error on test vector 4)

Yes... I posted a log with both SHA256 and SHA1.

> I found a typo in the number of CSR to save/restore for the SHA1 and
> SHA256 algorithm. It should be 38 instead of 22.
> Tell me if it fixes the regression.

Yes this fixes the bug and the tests pass fine :)
I wonder why SHA1 was affected? Same codepath?

> It could be possible to divide the patch in 2 (one patch rework
> preparing MP13 and one patch with the new algorithm) but for the
> upstream I do not know if it is relevant to have 2 patches instead of one.

The major point of splitting patches to "one technical step" is to be
able to do fine-grained git bisect to find bugs such as this one :D
But admittedly the defintion of "techical step" is a bit fuzzy.

Yours,
Linus Walleij