netdev - Re: 6.17 crashes in ipv6 code when booted fips=1 [was: [GIT PULL] Crypto Update for 6.17]

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: <a90447fc-1847-4307-a210-df15cd23f9fc@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 22:09:07 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, "nstange@...e.de" <nstange@...e.de>,
        "Wang, Jay" <wanjay@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: 6.17 crashes in ipv6 code when booted fips=1 [was: [GIT PULL]
 Crypto Update for 6.17]

On 06/10/2025 21:26, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:11:41PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> The fact is that fips=1 is not useful if it doesn't actually result
>> something that complies with the standard; the only purpose of fips=1 is
>> to allow the kernel to be used and certified as a FIPS module.
> 
> Don't all the distros doing this actually carry out-of-tree patches to
> fix up some things required for certification that upstream has never
> done?  So that puts the upstream fips=1 support in an awkward place,
> where it's always been an unfinished (and undocumented) feature.

I can't speak for all distros, but we have a handful of patches, around
6 or 7 I believe, most are fairly small. (We are, however, looking to
move to the standalone module I sent the RFC for, which has a lot more
patches...)

But yes, mainline fips=1 support is in a slightly awkward place. I see
no real reason for anybody to ever use it in production unless it's
actually a NIST certified build either.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize the amount of downstream
patches, though. (IMHO, anyway.)

I would like to try to document what fips=1 is currently and how to use
it and how to program for it (if nobody -- however unlikely -- beats me
to it). I came across this thread from over 10 years ago where people
are asking about the kernel FIPS docs and we still don't have any:

https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/2015-March/000904.html

Vegard