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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:52:28 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: "Ziyang Xuan (William)" <william.xuanziyang@...wei.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <borisp@...dia.com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <vakul.garg@....com>, <davejwatson@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/tls: fix slab-out-of-bounds bug in decrypt_internal On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:35:41 +0800 Ziyang Xuan (William) wrote: > I am thinking about is skb_copy_bits() necessary in non-TLS_1_3_VERSION > and non-TLS_CIPHER_CHACHA20_POLY1305 scenarios? It's not necessary there, but we should not make that change be part of the fix, the fix should be minimal. I'll send a separate patch to move the skb_copy_bits() call later on. I think for the fix all you should do is replace the crypto_aead_ivsize(ctx->aead_recv)); line with prot->iv_size + prot->salt_size); > If the inital iv+salt negotiated configuration for tx/rx offload is right > and reliable, what is the reason why we have to extract the iv value from > received skb instead if using the negotiated iv value? Does it can be > modified or just follow spec that versions below TLS_1_3_VERSION? TLS 1.3 does not send the nonce as part of the record. Instead the record number is always used as nonce in crypto.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists