| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 01:40:54 +0300
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
<kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <ardb@...nel.org>, <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, <peterhuewe@....de>,
<jgg@...pe.ca>, <luto@...capital.net>, <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <corbet@....net>,
<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
<kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>, <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
<trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/19] x86: Add early SHA-1 support for Secure Launch
early measurements
On Wed Jun 5, 2024 at 12:02 AM EEST, wrote:
> On 6/4/24 11:52 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri May 31, 2024 at 4:03 AM EEST, Ross Philipson wrote:
> >> From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
> >>
> >> For better or worse, Secure Launch needs SHA-1 and SHA-256. The
> >> choice of hashes used lie with the platform firmware, not with
> >> software, and is often outside of the users control.
> >>
> >> Even if we'd prefer to use SHA-256-only, if firmware elected to start us
> >> with the SHA-1 and SHA-256 backs active, we still need SHA-1 to parse
> >> the TPM event log thus far, and deliberately cap the SHA-1 PCRs in order
> >> to safely use SHA-256 for everything else.
> >>
> >> The SHA-1 code here has its origins in the code from the main kernel:
> >>
> >> commit c4d5b9ffa31f ("crypto: sha1 - implement base layer for SHA-1")
> >>
> >> A modified version of this code was introduced to the lib/crypto/sha1.c
> >> to bring it in line with the SHA-256 code and allow it to be pulled into the
> >> setup kernel in the same manner as SHA-256 is.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile | 2 +
> >> arch/x86/boot/compressed/early_sha1.c | 12 ++++
> >> include/crypto/sha1.h | 1 +
> >> lib/crypto/sha1.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 4 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 arch/x86/boot/compressed/early_sha1.c
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile
> >> index e9522c6893be..3307ebef4e1b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile
> >> @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ vmlinux-objs-$(CONFIG_EFI) += $(obj)/efi.o
> >> vmlinux-objs-$(CONFIG_EFI_MIXED) += $(obj)/efi_mixed.o
> >> vmlinux-objs-$(CONFIG_EFI_STUB) += $(objtree)/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/lib.a
> >>
> >> +vmlinux-objs-$(CONFIG_SECURE_LAUNCH) += $(obj)/early_sha1.o
> >> +
> >> $(obj)/vmlinux: $(vmlinux-objs-y) FORCE
> >> $(call if_changed,ld)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/early_sha1.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/early_sha1.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..8a9b904a73ab
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/early_sha1.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >> +/*
> >> + * Copyright (c) 2024 Apertus Solutions, LLC.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/init.h>
> >> +#include <linux/linkage.h>
> >> +#include <linux/string.h>
> >> +#include <asm/boot.h>
> >> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> >> +
> >> +#include "../../../../lib/crypto/sha1.c"
> > }
> >
> > Yep, make sense. Thinking only that should this be just sha1.c.
> >
> > Comparing this to mainly drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c, which is not
> > early_tpm.c where the early actually probably would make more sense
> > than here. Here sha1 primitive is just needed.
> >
> > This is definitely a nitpick but why carry a prefix that is not
> > that useful, right?
>
> I am not 100% sure what you mean here, sorry. Could you clarify about
> the prefix? Do you mean why did we choose early_*? There was precedent
> for doing that like early_serial_console.c.
Yep, that exactly. I'd just name as sha1.c.
>
> >
> >> diff --git a/include/crypto/sha1.h b/include/crypto/sha1.h
> >> index 044ecea60ac8..d715dd5332e1 100644
> >> --- a/include/crypto/sha1.h
> >> +++ b/include/crypto/sha1.h
> >> @@ -42,5 +42,6 @@ extern int crypto_sha1_finup(struct shash_desc *desc, const u8 *data,
> >> #define SHA1_WORKSPACE_WORDS 16
> >> void sha1_init(__u32 *buf);
> >> void sha1_transform(__u32 *digest, const char *data, __u32 *W);
> >> +void sha1(const u8 *data, unsigned int len, u8 *out);
> >>
> >> #endif /* _CRYPTO_SHA1_H */
> >> diff --git a/lib/crypto/sha1.c b/lib/crypto/sha1.c
> >> index 1aebe7be9401..10152125b338 100644
> >> --- a/lib/crypto/sha1.c
> >> +++ b/lib/crypto/sha1.c
> >> @@ -137,4 +137,85 @@ void sha1_init(__u32 *buf)
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(sha1_init);
> >>
> >> +static void __sha1_transform(u32 *digest, const char *data)
> >> +{
> >> + u32 ws[SHA1_WORKSPACE_WORDS];
> >> +
> >> + sha1_transform(digest, data, ws);
> >> +
> >> + memzero_explicit(ws, sizeof(ws));
> >
> > For the sake of future reference I'd carry always some inline comment
> > with any memzero_explicit() call site.
>
> We can do that.
>
> >
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void sha1_update(struct sha1_state *sctx, const u8 *data, unsigned int len)
> >> +{
> >> + unsigned int partial = sctx->count % SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE;
> >> +
> >> + sctx->count += len;
> >> +
> >> + if (likely((partial + len) >= SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE)) {
> >
> >
> > if (unlikely((partial + len) < SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE))
> > goto out;
> >
> > ?
>
> We could do it that way. I guess it would cut down in indenting. I defer
> to Daniel Smith on this...
Yep, that's why I requested this.
>
> >
> >> + int blocks;
> >> +
> >> + if (partial) {
> >> + int p = SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE - partial;
> >> +
> >> + memcpy(sctx->buffer + partial, data, p);
> >> + data += p;
> >> + len -= p;
> >> +
> >> + __sha1_transform(sctx->state, sctx->buffer);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + blocks = len / SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE;
> >> + len %= SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE;
> >> +
> >> + if (blocks) {
> >> + while (blocks--) {
> >> + __sha1_transform(sctx->state, data);
> >> + data += SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + partial = 0;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > out:
> >
> >> + if (len)
> >> + memcpy(sctx->buffer + partial, data, len);
> >
> > Why not just memcpy() unconditionally?
> >
>
> ... and this.
It only adds complexity with no gain.
>
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void sha1_final(struct sha1_state *sctx, u8 *out)
> >> +{
> >> + const int bit_offset = SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE - sizeof(__be64);
> >> + unsigned int partial = sctx->count % SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE;
> >> + __be64 *bits = (__be64 *)(sctx->buffer + bit_offset);
> >> + __be32 *digest = (__be32 *)out;
> >> + int i;
> >> +
> >> + sctx->buffer[partial++] = 0x80;
> >> + if (partial > bit_offset) {
> >> + memset(sctx->buffer + partial, 0x0, SHA1_BLOCK_SIZE - partial);
> >> + partial = 0;
> >> +
> >> + __sha1_transform(sctx->state, sctx->buffer);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + memset(sctx->buffer + partial, 0x0, bit_offset - partial);
> >> + *bits = cpu_to_be64(sctx->count << 3);
> >> + __sha1_transform(sctx->state, sctx->buffer);
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE / sizeof(__be32); i++)
> >> + put_unaligned_be32(sctx->state[i], digest++);
> >> +
> >> + *sctx = (struct sha1_state){};
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +void sha1(const u8 *data, unsigned int len, u8 *out)
> >> +{
> >> + struct sha1_state sctx = {0};
> >> +
> >> + sha1_init(sctx.state);
> >> + sctx.count = 0;
> >
> > Hmm... so shouldn't C99 take care of this given the initialization
> > above? I'm not 100% sure here. I.e. given "= {0}", shouldn't this
> > already be zero?
>
> Yes it seems so. We will look at changing that.
Yeah, AFAIK C99 should zero out anything remaining.
>
> >
> >> + sha1_update(&sctx, data, len);
> >> + sha1_final(&sctx, out);
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(sha1);
> >> +
> >> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >
> > BR, Jarkko
>
> Thanks
> Ross
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists