[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ttflli09.ffs@tglx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:10:14 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, "Eric W. Biederman"
<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Ross Philipson <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,
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,
jarkko@...nel.org, jgg@...pe.ca, luto@...capital.net,
nivedita@...m.mit.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
corbet@....net, 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 Thu, Aug 15 2024 at 13:38, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> On 5/31/24 09:54, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> writes:
>>> That paragraph is also phrased as a hypothetical, "Even if we'd prefer to use
>>> SHA-256-only". That implies that you do not, in fact, prefer SHA-256 only. Is
>>> that the case? Sure, maybe there are situations where you *have* to use SHA-1,
>>> but why would you not at least *prefer* SHA-256?
>>
>> Yes. Please prefer to use SHA-256.
>>
>> Have you considered implementing I think it is SHA1-DC (as git has) that
>> is compatible with SHA1 but blocks the known class of attacks where
>> sha1 is actively broken at this point?
>
> We are using the kernel's implementation, addressing what the kernel
> provides is beyond our efforts. Perhaps someone who is interested in
> improving the kernel's SHA1 could submit a patch implementing/replacing
> it with SHA1-DC, as I am sure the maintainers would welcome the help.
Well, someone who is interested to get his "secure" code merged should
have a vested interested to have a non-broken SHA1 implementation if
there is a sensible requirement to use SHA1 in that new "secure" code,
no?
Just for the record. The related maintainers can rightfully decide to
reject known broken "secure" code on a purely technical argument.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists