netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/23] zinc: ChaCha20 ARM and ARM64 implementations

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]

Message-ID: <CAHmME9pZKUMnnSZ0670rUH4H61g0x88c-B-DZYw_X-8+xgH-=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:03:34 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 07/23] zinc: ChaCha20 ARM and ARM64 implementations

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:21 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> Are, is what you’re saying that the Zinc chacha20 functions should call simd_relax() every n bytes automatically for some reasonable value of n?  If so, seems sensible, except that some care might be needed to make sure they interact with preemption correctly.
>
> What I mean is: the public Zinc entry points should either be callable in an atomic context or they should not be.  I think this should be checked at runtime in an appropriate place with an __might_sleep or similar.  Or simd_relax should learn to *not* schedule if the result of preempt_enable() leaves it atomic. (And the latter needs to be done in a way that works even on non-preempt kernels, and I don’t remember whether that’s possible.). And this should happen regardless of how many bytes are processed. IOW, calling into Zinc should be equally not atomic-safe for 100 bytes and for 10 MB.

I'm not sure this is actually a problem. Namely:

preempt_disable();
kernel_fpu_begin();
kernel_fpu_end();
schedule(); <--- bug!

Calling kernel_fpu_end() disables preemption, but AFAIK, preemption
enabling/disabling is recursive, so kernel_fpu_end's use of
preempt_disable won't actually do anything until the outer preempt
enable is called:

preempt_disable();
kernel_fpu_begin();
kernel_fpu_end();
preempt_enable();
schedule(); <--- works!

Or am I missing some more subtle point?

Jason