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  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]
Date:   Sat, 8 Aug 2020 21:18:27 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     George Spelvin <lkml@....org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        aksecurity@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com, Jason@...c4.com, luto@...nel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        tytso@....edu, lkml.mplumb@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: Flaw in "random32: update the net random state on interrupt and
 activity"

Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/random.h b/include/linux/random.h
> index 9ab7443bd91b..9e22973b207c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/random.h
> +++ b/include/linux/random.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <linux/list.h>
>  #include <linux/once.h>
>  #include <asm/percpu.h>
> +#include <linux/siphash.h>
>  
>  #include <uapi/linux/random.h>
>  
> @@ -117,7 +118,8 @@ void prandom_seed(u32 seed);
>  void prandom_reseed_late(void);
>  
>  struct rnd_state {
> -	__u32 s1, s2, s3, s4;
> +	siphash_key_t key;
> +	uint64_t counter;
>  };

Does the siphash_key really need to be percpu?
The counter is different of course.
Alternative would be to siphash a few prandom_u32 results
if the extra u64 is too much storage.

>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rnd_state, net_rand_state);
> @@ -161,12 +163,14 @@ static inline u32 __seed(u32 x, u32 m)
>   */
>  static inline void prandom_seed_state(struct rnd_state *state, u64 seed)
>  {
> +#if 0
>  	u32 i = (seed >> 32) ^ (seed << 10) ^ seed;
>  
>  	state->s1 = __seed(i,   2U);
>  	state->s2 = __seed(i,   8U);
>  	state->s3 = __seed(i,  16U);
>  	state->s4 = __seed(i, 128U);
> +#endif
>  }
[..]

Can't we keep prandom_u32 as-is...?  Most of the usage, esp. in the
packet schedulers, is fine.

I'd much rather have a prandom_u32_hashed() or whatever for
those cases where some bits might leak to the outside and then convert
those prandom_u32 users over to the siphashed version.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists