netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipv4: move tcp_fastopen server side code to SipHash library

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: <20190616.134705.1682820035874057137.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, ebiggers@...nel.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        jbaron@...mai.com, cpaasch@...le.com, David.Laight@...lab.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipv4: move tcp_fastopen server side code to
 SipHash library

From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:01:22 +0200

> Using a bare block cipher in non-crypto code is almost always a bad idea,
> not only for security reasons (and we've seen some examples of this in
> the kernel in the past), but also for performance reasons.
> 
> In the TCP fastopen case, we call into the bare AES block cipher one or
> two times (depending on whether the connection is IPv4 or IPv6). On most
> systems, this results in a call chain such as
> 
>   crypto_cipher_encrypt_one(ctx, dst, src)
>     crypto_cipher_crt(tfm)->cit_encrypt_one(crypto_cipher_tfm(tfm), ...);
>       aesni_encrypt
>         kernel_fpu_begin();
>         aesni_enc(ctx, dst, src); // asm routine
>         kernel_fpu_end();
> 
> It is highly unlikely that the use of special AES instructions has a
> benefit in this case, especially since we are doing the above twice
> for IPv6 connections, instead of using a transform which can process
> the entire input in one go.
> 
> We could switch to the cbcmac(aes) shash, which would at least get
> rid of the duplicated overhead in *some* cases (i.e., today, only
> arm64 has an accelerated implementation of cbcmac(aes), while x86 will
> end up using the generic cbcmac template wrapping the AES-NI cipher,
> which basically ends up doing exactly the above). However, in the given
> context, it makes more sense to use a light-weight MAC algorithm that
> is more suitable for the purpose at hand, such as SipHash.
> 
> Since the output size of SipHash already matches our chosen value for
> TCP_FASTOPEN_COOKIE_SIZE, and given that it accepts arbitrary input
> sizes, this greatly simplifies the code as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>

Please add some text to the commit message explaining the potential
partial deployment problems Eric mentioned.

Thank you.