* Intel GCM: __driver-gcm-aes-aesni setkey missing
@ 2015-01-17 18:23 Stephan Mueller
2015-01-18 1:37 ` Tadeusz Struk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephan Mueller @ 2015-01-17 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tadeusz.struk, aidan.o.mahony, gabriele.paoloni, adrian.hoban
Cc: linux-crypto, herbert, 'LKML'
Hi Gabriele, Adrian, Tadeusz, Aidan,
during testing of my algif_aead patch with the different GCM implementations I
am able to trigger a kernel crash from user space using __driver-gcm-aes-
aesni.
As I hope that algif_aead is going to be included, unprivileged userspace
would then reliably crash the kernel -- with the current kernel code,
userspace has no interface to trigger the issue.
Looking into the kernel code I think I see where the issue is. The crash
happens when setkey is invoked. The kernel crypto API defines setkey as the
following:
static inline int crypto_aead_setkey(struct crypto_aead *tfm, const u8 *key,
unsigned int keylen)
{
struct aead_tfm *crt = crypto_aead_crt(tfm);
return crt->setkey(crt->base, key, keylen);
}
This means that the kernel crypto API expects that ciphers always implement a
setkey callback.
However, __driver-gcm-aes-aesni does not implement a setkey:
.aead = {
.encrypt = __driver_rfc4106_encrypt,
.decrypt = __driver_rfc4106_decrypt,
},
As I am not sure what the purpose of __driver-gcm-aes-aesni is (only a backend
for RFC4106 GCM or a regular cipher), I did not yet create a patch. IMHO there
are two solutions:
- either create a valid setkey callback so that a key is set
- or create a noop setkey that returns -EOPNOTSUPP which effectively disables
that cipher for regular consumption.
Note, if it is only a backend for the RFC4106 implementation, may I ask why
__driver-gcm-aes-aesni is implemented as a separate cipher that is registered
with the kernel crypto API?
--
Ciao
Stephan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel GCM: __driver-gcm-aes-aesni setkey missing
2015-01-17 18:23 Intel GCM: __driver-gcm-aes-aesni setkey missing Stephan Mueller
@ 2015-01-18 1:37 ` Tadeusz Struk
2015-01-18 18:15 ` Stephan Mueller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tadeusz Struk @ 2015-01-18 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephan Mueller, aidan.o.mahony, gabriele.paoloni, adrian.hoban
Cc: linux-crypto, herbert, 'LKML'
Hi Stephan,
On 01/17/2015 10:23 AM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> during testing of my algif_aead patch with the different GCM implementations I
> am able to trigger a kernel crash from user space using __driver-gcm-aes-
> aesni.
>
> As I hope that algif_aead is going to be included, unprivileged userspace
> would then reliably crash the kernel -- with the current kernel code,
> userspace has no interface to trigger the issue.
Yes, that's a problem.
>
> As I am not sure what the purpose of __driver-gcm-aes-aesni is (only a backend
> for RFC4106 GCM or a regular cipher), I did not yet create a patch. IMHO there
> are two solutions:
>
> - either create a valid setkey callback so that a key is set
>
> - or create a noop setkey that returns -EOPNOTSUPP which effectively disables
> that cipher for regular consumption.
__driver-gcm-aes-aesni is only a helper for rfc4106-gcm-aesni and it
never supposed to be used on it's own. I think implementing a setkey
function that only returns an error would be a good solution for this.
Another question is what if someone will ignore the error or skip the
setsockopt(ALG_SET_KEY) altogether and still call the sendmsg() and
read() to trigger encrypt()?
> Note, if it is only a backend for the RFC4106 implementation, may I ask why
> __driver-gcm-aes-aesni is implemented as a separate cipher that is registered
> with the kernel crypto API?
This is because we need to have one instance of the helper tfm with its
context per each of the rfc4106-gcm-aesni tfm instance and that was one
convenient way to do this.
Tadeusz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Intel GCM: __driver-gcm-aes-aesni setkey missing
2015-01-18 1:37 ` Tadeusz Struk
@ 2015-01-18 18:15 ` Stephan Mueller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephan Mueller @ 2015-01-18 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tadeusz Struk
Cc: aidan.o.mahony, gabriele.paoloni, adrian.hoban, linux-crypto,
herbert, 'LKML'
Am Samstag, 17. Januar 2015, 17:37:06 schrieb Tadeusz Struk:
Hi Tadeusz,
> Hi Stephan,
>
> On 01/17/2015 10:23 AM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > during testing of my algif_aead patch with the different GCM
> > implementations I am able to trigger a kernel crash from user space using
> > __driver-gcm-aes- aesni.
> >
> > As I hope that algif_aead is going to be included, unprivileged userspace
> > would then reliably crash the kernel -- with the current kernel code,
> > userspace has no interface to trigger the issue.
>
> Yes, that's a problem.
>
> > As I am not sure what the purpose of __driver-gcm-aes-aesni is (only a
> > backend for RFC4106 GCM or a regular cipher), I did not yet create a
> > patch. IMHO there are two solutions:
> >
> > - either create a valid setkey callback so that a key is set
> >
> > - or create a noop setkey that returns -EOPNOTSUPP which effectively
> > disables that cipher for regular consumption.
>
> __driver-gcm-aes-aesni is only a helper for rfc4106-gcm-aesni and it
> never supposed to be used on it's own. I think implementing a setkey
> function that only returns an error would be a good solution for this.
Ok, I will send a patch shortly.
> Another question is what if someone will ignore the error or skip the
> setsockopt(ALG_SET_KEY) altogether and still call the sendmsg() and
> read() to trigger encrypt()?
Using my libkcapi [1] test bench, I disabled key and IV submission for
symmetric ciphers (tested cbc(aes) which invokes your AESNI code path on my
box -- and gcm(aes) and ccm(aes) which again both use the AESNI core and the C
implementation of GCM and CCM).
All tests with missing keys and IVs:
- showed a successful encryption / decryption with the CBC mode
- returned the error code of either ENOKEY or EINVAL for GCM / CCM
encryption/decryption
There is no crash/BUG/WARN observed.
>
> > Note, if it is only a backend for the RFC4106 implementation, may I ask
> > why
> > __driver-gcm-aes-aesni is implemented as a separate cipher that is
> > registered with the kernel crypto API?
>
> This is because we need to have one instance of the helper tfm with its
> context per each of the rfc4106-gcm-aesni tfm instance and that was one
> convenient way to do this.
Then I concur with you that having a setkey function returning an error is the
right way.
>
> Tadeusz
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Ciao
Stephan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-01-18 18:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-01-17 18:23 Intel GCM: __driver-gcm-aes-aesni setkey missing Stephan Mueller
2015-01-18 1:37 ` Tadeusz Struk
2015-01-18 18:15 ` Stephan Mueller
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.