linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_check

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: <aDi2JWk0jtbUpMhD@wunner.de>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 21:31:49 +0200
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, jarkko@...nel.org,
	zeffron@...tgames.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
	kysrinivasan@...il.com, code@...icks.com,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
	James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
	Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>,
	Quentin Monnet <qmo@...nel.org>,
	Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
	Anton Protopopov <aspsk@...valent.com>,
	Jordan Rome <linux@...danrome.com>,
	Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@...wdstrike.com>,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
	Matteo Croce <teknoraver@...a.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_check_signature

On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 08:32:43AM -0700, Blaise Boscaccy wrote:
> Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> writes:
> > Constraining oneself to sha256 doesn't seem future-proof.
> 
> Definitely not a bad idea, curious, how would you envision that looking
> from an UAPI perspective?

If possible, extend the anonymous struct used by BPF_PROG_LOAD command
with an additional parameter to select the hash algorithm.

Alternatively, create a new command to set the hash algorithm for
subsequent BPF_PROG_LOAD commands.

Use enum hash_algo in include/uapi/linux/hash_info.h to encode the
selected algorithm.  You don't need to support all of these
(some of them are deprecated), but at least the sha3 and possibly
sha2 family is a good idea.

Note that CNSA 2.0 has raised the minimum approved hash size to
384 bits both for sha2 and sha3 in light of PQC:

https://www.fortanix.com/blog/which-post-quantum-cryptography-pqc-algorithm-should-i-use

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Sep/07/2003071836/-1/-1/0/CSI_CNSA_2.0_FAQ_.PDF

Granted, there's no mainline support for PQC signature algorithms yet,
but there's at least one out-of-tree implementation, it's only a question
of when not if something like this is submitted for mainline:

https://github.com/smuellerDD/leancrypto

Thanks,

Lukas