linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] crypto: Proper Initialization of `struct skcipher

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: <DB3PR10MB683587925DA82E44BD8D5D6EE8A6A@DB3PR10MB6835.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 10:27:41 +0530
From:   Yuran Pereira <yuran.pereira@...mail.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] crypto: Proper Initialization of `struct
 skcipher_walk` in x86 Glue Files

Hey Herbert,
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:30:44PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 09:20:43PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >
> > Updating all callers of skcipher_walk_virt() seems like the wrong approach.
> > Shouldn't skcipher_walk_virt() be fixed to initialize the flags to 0 instead?
> 
> The bits of the flags that are used are initialised in skcipher_walk_next.
>
I noticed that, but since skcipher_walk_first can return with failure, there seems
to be a chance that those bits are never initialized.
> > Also, does this fix affect any behavior, or is it just to fix a KMSAN warning?
> > It needs to be fixed either way, but it's helpful to understand the effect of
> > the fix so that people can decide whether it needs to be backported or not.
> 
> Does this actually trigger a KMSAN warning? If so I'd like to see
> it.  If it's just a static analyser then I'm not applying this.
No, there is no KMSAN warning. As I mentioned in the individual patches,
they're addressing "coverity" reports (so yes, static analyser).

Initially it did look like a false positive, but upon seeing that 
skcipher_walk_first can return without ever calling skcipher_walk_next
I thought that there might be an off-chance that skcipher_walk_virt
returns without ever initializing those bits of the flag... hence this
patch set.

PS: I just saw Eric's reply, 
> > Updating all callers of skcipher_walk_virt() seems like the wrong approach.

and realized that maybe my approach is in fact an overkill. Maybe simply initializing 
the flags would indeed suffice.

Thanks,