netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] [RESEND] wireguard: disable in FIPS mode

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: <CAHmME9oqK9iXRn3wxAB-MZvX3k_hMbtjHF_V9UY96u6NLcczAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 20:44:35 -0600
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     Simo Sorce <simo@...hat.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RESEND] wireguard: disable in FIPS mode

Hi Hangbin,

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:41 PM Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> I agree that the best way is to disable the crypto modules in FIPS mode.
> But the code in lib/crypto looks not the same with crypto/. For modules
> in crypto, there is an alg_test() to check if the crytpo is FIPS allowed
> when do register.
>
> - crypto_register_alg()
>   - crypto_wait_for_test()
>     - crypto_probing_notify(CRYPTO_MSG_ALG_REGISTER, larval->adult)
>       - cryptomgr_schedule_test()
>         - cryptomgr_test()
>           - alg_test()
>
> But in lib/crypto the code are more like a library. We can call it anytime
> and there is no register. Maybe we should add a similar check in lib/crypto.
> But I'm not familiar with crypto code... Not sure if anyone in linux-crypto@
> would like help do that.

Since it's just a normal module library, you can simply do this in the
module_init function, rather than deep within registration
abstractions.

> > diff --git a/lib/crypto/curve25519.c b/lib/crypto/curve25519.c
> > index 288a62cd29b2..b794f49c291a 100644
> > --- a/lib/crypto/curve25519.c
> > +++ b/lib/crypto/curve25519.c
> > @@ -12,11 +12,15 @@
> >  #include <crypto/curve25519.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > +#include <linux/fips.h>
> >
> >  bool curve25519_selftest(void);
> >
> >  static int __init mod_init(void)
> >  {
> > + if (!fips_enabled)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> Question here, why it is !fips_enabled? Shouldn't we return error when
> fips_enabled?

Er, just not thinking straight today. `if (fips_enabled)` is probably
what you want indeed.

Jason