From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:34:54 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] rsa: Fix two errors in the implementation
In-Reply-To: <1406736017-4554-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org>
References: <1406736017-4554-1-git-send-email-sjg@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <53D956EE.20202@myspectrum.nl>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hello Simon,

On 30-07-14 18:00, Simon Glass wrote:
> 1. Failure to set the return code correctly
> 2. Failure to detect the loop end condition when the value is equal to
> the modulus.
>
> Reported-by: Jeroen Hofstee <jeroen@myspectrum.nl>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
>   lib/rsa/rsa-sign.c   | 1 +
>   lib/rsa/rsa-verify.c | 4 ++--
>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/rsa/rsa-sign.c b/lib/rsa/rsa-sign.c
> index 83f5e87..6905131 100644
> --- a/lib/rsa/rsa-sign.c
> +++ b/lib/rsa/rsa-sign.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static int rsa_get_pub_key(const char *keydir, const char *name, RSA **rsap)
>   	rsa = EVP_PKEY_get1_RSA(key);
>   	if (!rsa) {
>   		rsa_err("Couldn't convert to a RSA style key");
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
>   		goto err_rsa;
>   	}
>   	fclose(f);
> diff --git a/lib/rsa/rsa-verify.c b/lib/rsa/rsa-verify.c
> index bcb9063..02e3eeb 100644
> --- a/lib/rsa/rsa-verify.c
> +++ b/lib/rsa/rsa-verify.c
> @@ -54,9 +54,9 @@ static void subtract_modulus(const struct rsa_public_key *key, uint32_t num[])
>   static int greater_equal_modulus(const struct rsa_public_key *key,
>   				 uint32_t num[])
>   {
> -	uint32_t i;
> +	int i;
>   
> -	for (i = key->len - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +	for (i = (int)key->len - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
>   		if (num[i] < key->modulus[i])
>   			return 0;
>   		if (num[i] > key->modulus[i])

I did indeed not post a patch, since I do not know how this code
is used and how critical it is. And I still haven't bothered to look it
up.

So just a general comment,  which might not make any sense
at all for the actual usage. If num can somehow be controlled by an
evil source, passing a large enough value or 0 now causes this
function to return equal. I have no idea if this causes any practical
issue.

Warnings / error wise, this seems fine, thanks!

Regards,
Jeroen