[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YG8dJpEEWP3PxUIm@sol.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:11:34 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RESEND] wireguard: disable in FIPS mode
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 07:58:08PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:06:52AM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > > Also, couldn't you just consider WireGuard to be outside your FIPS module
> > > boundary, which would remove it from the scope of the certification?
> > >
> > > And how do you handle all the other places in the kernel that use ChaCha20 and
> > > SipHash? For example, drivers/char/random.c?
> >
> > Good question, I will check it and reply to you later.
>
> I just read the code. The drivers/char/random.c do has some fips specific
> parts(seems not related to crypto). After commit e192be9d9a30 ("random: replace
> non-blocking pool with a Chacha20-based CRNG") we moved part of chacha code to
> lib/chacha20.c and make that code out of control.
>
So you are saying that you removed drivers/char/random.c and lib/chacha20.c from
your FIPS module boundary? Why not do the same for WireGuard?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists