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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:46:28 -0400
From:   Simo Sorce <simo@...hat.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.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>,
        "herbert.xu" <herbert.xu@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RESEND] wireguard: disable in FIPS mode

On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 14:56 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> I can't speak for Hangbin, we do not work for the same company and I
> was not aware of his efforts until this patch landed.

Turns out I and Hangbin do work for the same company after all.
Left hand is meeting right hand internally now. :-D
The comments still stand of course.

Simo.

> For my part we were already looking at big_key, wireguard and other
> areas internally, but were not thinking of sending upstream patches
> like these w/o first a good assessment with our teams and lab that they
> were proper and sufficient.
> 
> >  So
> > I think either you should send an exhaustive patch series that forbids
> > all use of non-FIPS crypto anywhere in the kernel (another example:
> > net/core/secure_seq.c) in addition to all tunneling modules that don't
> > use FIPS-certified crypto, or figure out how to disable the lib/crypto
> > primitives that you want to be disabled in "fips mode". With a
> > coherent patchset for either of these, we can then evaluate it.
> 
> Yes a cohesive approach would be ideal, but I do not know if pushing
> substantially the same checks we have in the Crypto API down to
> lib/crypto is the right way to go, I am not oppose but I guess Herbert
> would have to chime in here.
> 

-- 
Simo Sorce
RHEL Crypto Team
Red Hat, Inc