Re: [GIT PULL] KEYS: Fixes and crypto fixes

From: James Morris
Date: Wed Sep 27 2017 - 22:08:58 EST


On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Eric Biggers wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 09:14:58AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, David Howells wrote:
> >
> > > (2) Fixing big_key to use safe crypto from Jason A. Donenfeld.
> > >
> >
> > I'm concerned about the lack of crypto review mentioned by Jason -- I
> > wonder if we can get this rewrite any more review from crypto folk.
> >
> > Also, are there any tests for this code? If not, it would be good to make
> > some.
> >
>
> There is a test for the big_key key type in the keyutils test suite. I also
> manually tested Jason's change. And as far as I can tell there isn't actually a
> whole lot to test besides adding a big_key larger than BIG_KEY_FILE_THRESHOLD
> bytes, reading it back, and verifying that the data is unchanged --- since that
> covers the code that was changed. An earlier version of the patch produced a
> warning with CONFIG_DEBUG_SG=y since it put the aead_request on the stack, but
> that's been fixed.
>

Ok, thanks a lot.

> It would be great if someone else would comment on the crypto too, but for what
> it's worth I'm satisfied with the crypto changes. GCM is a much better choice
> than ECB as long as we don't repeat (key, IV) pairs --- which we don't. And in
> any case ECB mode makes no sense in this context; you'd need a *very* good
> reason to actually choose to encrypt something with ECB mode. Unfortunately it
> tends to be a favorite of people who don't understand encryption modes...

Adding Herbert.


--
James Morris
<jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>