netdev - Re: [PATCH net] bpf: rework prog_digest into prog

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: <587969D7.5010806@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2017 00:59:19 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] bpf: rework prog_digest into prog_tag

On 01/14/2017 12:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
>> On 01/14/2017 12:16 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Commit 7bd509e311f4 ("bpf: add prog_digest and expose it via
>>>> fdinfo/netlink") was recently discussed, partially due to
>>>> admittedly suboptimal name of "prog_digest" in combination
>>>> with sha1 hash usage, thus inevitably and rightfully concerns
>>>> about its security in terms of collision resistance were
>>>> raised with regards to use-cases.
>>>
>>> Seems reasonable.  My only question is whether you'd still want to
>>> switch to SHA-256 just from a code cleanliness perspective.  With
>>> SHA-256 you can use the easy streaming API I wrote, but with SHA-1
>>> you're still stuck with the crappy API in lib/, and I'm not
>>> volunteering to fix up the SHA-1 API.
>>
>> We'd need to truncate that in kernel anyway to not get a too long
>> tag, so given that I'm actually fine with it as-is. I was planning
>> to submit the code for testing to bpf selftests for net-next once
>> it's merged back, too.
>
> Unless you want to kill off that vmalloc()+vfree() pair...

That is really just in slow-path, and should that become a bottleneck
compared to the rest of the verification steps or allocs we do there,
then we can always clean it up in net-next.

Thanks,
Daniel