netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 crypto 08/12] chtls: Key program

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:05:18 +0100
From:   Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To:     Atul Gupta <atul.gupta@...lsio.com>
Cc:     davejwatson@...com, davem@...emloft.net,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ganeshgr@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 crypto 08/12] chtls: Key program

2018-03-06, 21:09:27 +0530, Atul Gupta wrote:
[snip]
> +static int chtls_set_tcb_field(struct sock *sk, u16 word, u64 mask, u64 val)
> +{
> +	struct chtls_sock *csk = rcu_dereference_sk_user_data(sk);
> +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> +	struct cpl_set_tcb_field *req;
> +	struct ulptx_idata *sc;
> +	unsigned int wrlen = roundup(sizeof(*req) + sizeof(*sc), 16);
> +	unsigned int credits_needed = DIV_ROUND_UP(wrlen, 16);
> +
> +	skb = alloc_skb(wrlen, GFP_ATOMIC);

I haven't followed the whole call chain, but does this really need to
be an atomic allocation?
Should this skb be charged to the socket's memory accounting?

> +	if (!skb)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	__set_tcb_field(sk, skb, word, mask, val, 0, 1);
> +	set_queue(skb, (csk->txq_idx << 1) | CPL_PRIORITY_DATA, sk);
> +	csk->wr_credits -= credits_needed;
> +	csk->wr_unacked += credits_needed;
> +	enqueue_wr(csk, skb);
> +	cxgb4_ofld_send(csk->egress_dev, skb);

Should the return value be checked?

> +	return 0;
> +}


[snip]
> +static void *chtls_alloc_mem(unsigned long size)
> +{
> +	void *p = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> +	if (!p)
> +		p = vmalloc(size);
> +	if (p)
> +		memset(p, 0, size);
> +	return p;
> +}

I think you replace this with kvzalloc().

> +static void chtls_free_mem(void *addr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long p = (unsigned long)addr;
> +
> +	if (p >= VMALLOC_START && p < VMALLOC_END)
> +		vfree(addr);
> +	else
> +		kfree(addr);
> +}

Use kvfree().

> +/* TLS Key bitmap processing */
> +int chtls_init_kmap(struct chtls_dev *cdev, struct cxgb4_lld_info *lldi)
> +{
> +	unsigned int num_key_ctx, bsize;
> +
> +	num_key_ctx = (lldi->vr->key.size / TLS_KEY_CONTEXT_SZ);
> +	bsize = BITS_TO_LONGS(num_key_ctx);
> +
> +	cdev->kmap.size = num_key_ctx;
> +	cdev->kmap.available = bsize;
> +	cdev->kmap.addr = chtls_alloc_mem(sizeof(*cdev->kmap.addr) *
> +					  bsize);
> +	if (!cdev->kmap.addr)
> +		return -1;

The return value of this function is never checked.

> +
> +	cdev->kmap.start = lldi->vr->key.start;
> +	spin_lock_init(&cdev->kmap.lock);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void chtls_free_kmap(struct chtls_dev *cdev)
> +{
> +	if (cdev->kmap.addr)
> +		chtls_free_mem(cdev->kmap.addr);
> +}

I think this wrapper function is not necessary.

> +static int get_new_keyid(struct chtls_sock *csk, u32 optname)
> +{
> +	struct chtls_dev *cdev = csk->cdev;
> +	struct chtls_hws *hws = &csk->tlshws;
> +	struct net_device *dev = csk->egress_dev;
> +	struct adapter *adap = netdev2adap(dev);
> +	int keyid;
> +
> +	spin_lock_bh(&cdev->kmap.lock);
> +	keyid = find_first_zero_bit(cdev->kmap.addr, cdev->kmap.size);
> +	if (keyid < cdev->kmap.size) {
> +		__set_bit(keyid, cdev->kmap.addr);
> +		if (optname == TLS_RX)

TLS_RX only gets defined in patch 11, so the only reason you're not
breaking the build is because all these new files aren't getting
compiled until patch 12.

> +			hws->rxkey = keyid;
> +		else
> +			hws->txkey = keyid;
> +		atomic_inc(&adap->chcr_stats.tls_key);
> +	} else {
> +		keyid = -1;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&cdev->kmap.lock);
> +	return keyid;
> +}
> +

[snip]
> +int chtls_setkey(struct chtls_sock *csk, u32 keylen, u32 optname)
> +{
...
>+	skb = alloc_skb(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>+	if (!skb)
>+		return -ENOMEM;

This return code is also ignored by its caller.  Please review the
whole patchset for that problem.

Same question as before, does this need to be accounted?


> +	/* ulptx command */
> +	kwr->req.cmd = cpu_to_be32(ULPTX_CMD_V(ULP_TX_MEM_WRITE) |
> +			    T5_ULP_MEMIO_ORDER_V(1) |
> +			    T5_ULP_MEMIO_IMM_V(1));
> +	kwr->req.len16 = cpu_to_be32((csk->tid << 8) |
> +			      DIV_ROUND_UP(len - sizeof(kwr->wr), 16));
> +	kwr->req.dlen = cpu_to_be32(ULP_MEMIO_DATA_LEN_V(klen >> 5));
> +	kwr->req.lock_addr = cpu_to_be32(ULP_MEMIO_ADDR_V(keyid_to_addr
> +					(cdev->kmap.start, keyid)));

Breaking this line in that way makes it really hard to read for
humans.

-- 
Sabrina