linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] crypto: X25519 core functions for ppc64le

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 May 2024 08:06:01 -0500
From: Danny Tsen <dtsen@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Andy Polyakov <appro@...ptogams.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, leitao@...ian.org, nayna@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, ltcgcw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dtsen@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] crypto: X25519 core functions for ppc64le

Hi Andy,

Points taken.  And much appreciate for the help.

Thanks.

-Danny

On 5/15/24 3:29 AM, Andy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> +static void cswap(fe51 p, fe51 q, unsigned int bit)
>> +{
>> +    u64 t, i;
>> +    u64 c = 0 - (u64) bit;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
>> +        t = c & (p[i] ^ q[i]);
>> +        p[i] ^= t;
>> +        q[i] ^= t;
>> +    }
>> +}
>
> The "c" in cswap stands for "constant-time," and the problem is that 
> contemporary compilers have exhibited the ability to produce 
> non-constant-time machine code as result of compilation of the above 
> kind of technique. The outcome is platform-specific and ironically 
> some of PPC code generators were observed to generate "most" 
> non-constant-time code. "Most" in sense that execution time variations 
> would be most easy to catch. One way to work around the problem, at 
> least for the time being, is to add 'asm volatile("" : "+r"(c))' after 
> you calculate 'c'. But there is no guarantee that the next compiler 
> version won't see through it, hence the permanent solution is to do it 
> in assembly. I can put together something...
>
> Cheers.
>