netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] mac80211: move extra crypto data off the stack

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: <41D0AC2F-E86E-4A98-AD8B-1239D7E6123A@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:02:53 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     "<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mac80211: move extra crypto data off the stack



> On 17 Oct 2016, at 10:54, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Well, if your other patch to make it OK to be on-stack would be
>>> applied instead, this wouldn't make much sense either :)
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes but that one only fixes ccm not gcm
> 
> Yes, but we can do the same for GCM, no?
> 

No, not really. ccm happens to use aes with the same key for the mac and the encryption. gcm uses an another algo entirely for the mac

>>> In this particular patch, we could reduce the size of the struct,
>>> but I
>>> don't actually think it'll make a difference to go from 48 to 36
>>> bytes,
>>> given alignment etc., so I think I'll just leave it as is.
>>> 
>> 
>> I understand you are in a hurry, but this is unlikely to be the only
>> such issue. I will propose an 'auxdata' feature for the crypto api
>> that can be used here, but also for any other occurrence where client
>> data assoiciated with the request can no longer be allocated on the
>> stack
> 
> No objections. I'll merge this anyway today I think, reverting is easy
> later.
> 

ok fair enough