From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm: Compare HMAC values in constant time
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 20:02:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250801030210.GA1495@sol> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ed1ae7e7f52afe53ce2ff00f362ed153b3eec20.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:28:49PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 14:52 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > To prevent timing attacks, HMAC value comparison needs to be constant
> > time. Replace the memcmp() with the correct function,
> > crypto_memneq().
>
> Um, OK, I'm all for more security but how could there possibly be a
> timing attack in the hmac final comparison code? All it's doing is
> seeing if the HMAC the TPM returns matches the calculated one. Beyond
> this calculation, there's nothing secret about the HMAC key.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Timing attacks on MAC
validation are a well-known issue that can allow a valid MAC to be
guessed without knowing the key. Whether it's practical in this
particular case for some architecture+compiler+kconfig combination is
another question, but there's no reason not to use the constant-time
comparison function that solves this problem.
Is your claim that in this case the key is public, so the MAC really
just serves as a checksum (and thus the wrong primitive is being used)?
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-01 3:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-31 21:52 [PATCH 0/2] tpm: HMAC fix and cleanup Eric Biggers
2025-07-31 21:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] tpm: Compare HMAC values in constant time Eric Biggers
2025-08-01 2:28 ` James Bottomley
2025-08-01 3:02 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2025-08-01 11:36 ` James Bottomley
2025-08-01 17:11 ` Eric Biggers
2025-08-01 18:03 ` James Bottomley
2025-08-01 18:40 ` Eric Biggers
2025-08-01 18:53 ` James Bottomley
2025-08-01 19:03 ` Eric Biggers
2025-08-01 19:20 ` James Bottomley
2025-08-01 20:14 ` Eric Biggers
2025-07-31 21:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] tpm: Use HMAC-SHA256 library instead of open-coded HMAC Eric Biggers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250801030210.GA1495@sol \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).