netdev - Re: sha512: make it work, undo percpu message schedule

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: <20120113110255.GD12501@secunet.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:02:55 +0100
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	ken@...elabs.ch
Subject: Re: sha512: make it work, undo percpu message schedule

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:35:42AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2012 à 18:08 +1100, Herbert Xu a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 02:55:14AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > >
> > > Herbert, I couldn't come up with a single scenario. :-(
> > > But the bug is easy to reproduce.
> > 
> > OK, does this patch work for you?
> > 
> > commit 31f4e55c09c1170f8b813c14b1299b70f50db414
> > Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> > Date:   Fri Jan 13 18:06:50 2012 +1100
> > 
> >     crypto: sha512 - Fix msg_schedule race
> >     
> >     The percpu msg_schedule setup was unsafe as a user in a process
> >     context can be interrupted by a softirq user which would then
> >     scribble over the exact same work area.  This was discovered by
> >     Steffen Klassert.
> >     
> >     This patch based on ideas from Eric Dumazet fixes this by using
> >     two independent work areas.
> >     
> >     Reported-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> > 
> 
> I wonder ...
> 
> With 4096 cpus, do we really want to reserve 5242880 bytes of memory for
> this function ?
> 
> What about following patch instead ?
> 
> (Trying a dynamic memory allocation, and fallback on a single
> pre-allocated bloc of memory, shared by all cpus, protected by a
> spinlock)

If we want to do dynamic memory allocation, we could place it to the
shash_desc context where we already store the intermediate digest value.
This is preallocated anyway, so we don't need to do another allocation.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html