diff mbox series

[v2,2/4] crypto: skcipher - Enforce non-ASYNC for on-stack requests

Message ID 20180906225854.40989-3-keescook@chromium.org (mailing list archive)
State Superseded
Delegated to: Herbert Xu
Headers show
Series crypto: skcipher - Remove VLA usage | expand

Commit Message

Kees Cook Sept. 6, 2018, 10:58 p.m. UTC
Check at use-time whether an skcipher request is on the stack. If it
is, enforce that it must be backed by a synchronous algorithm, as is
required:

  https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2018-January/msg00087.html

Co-developed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 include/crypto/skcipher.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Herbert Xu Sept. 7, 2018, 3:42 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:58:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> @@ -437,6 +442,12 @@ static inline struct crypto_skcipher *crypto_skcipher_reqtfm_check(
>  {
>  	struct crypto_skcipher *tfm = crypto_skcipher_reqtfm(req);
>  
> +	if (req->__onstack) {
> +		if (WARN_ON(crypto_skcipher_alg(tfm)->base.cra_flags &
> +				CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC))
> +			return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +	}

Sorry but I don't like imposing a run-time check on everybody when
stack-based requests are the odd ones out.  If we're going to make
this a run-time check (I'd much prefer a compile-time check, but I
understand that this may involve too much churn), then please do it
for stack-based request users only.

Thanks,
Ard Biesheuvel Sept. 7, 2018, 6:56 a.m. UTC | #2
On 7 September 2018 at 05:42, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:58:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> @@ -437,6 +442,12 @@ static inline struct crypto_skcipher *crypto_skcipher_reqtfm_check(
>>  {
>>       struct crypto_skcipher *tfm = crypto_skcipher_reqtfm(req);
>>
>> +     if (req->__onstack) {
>> +             if (WARN_ON(crypto_skcipher_alg(tfm)->base.cra_flags &
>> +                             CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC))
>> +                     return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +     }
>
> Sorry but I don't like imposing a run-time check on everybody when
> stack-based requests are the odd ones out.  If we're going to make
> this a run-time check (I'd much prefer a compile-time check, but I
> understand that this may involve too much churn), then please do it
> for stack-based request users only.
>

OK, so given that all SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK occurrences are
updated in this series anyway, perhaps we should add
skcipher_[en|de]crypt_onstack() flavors that encapsulate the
additional check? Only question is how to enforce at compile time that
those are used instead of the ordinary ones when using a stack
allocated request. Would you mind using some macro foo here involving
__builtin_types_compatible_p() ?
Kees Cook Sept. 7, 2018, 4:02 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:58:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> @@ -437,6 +442,12 @@ static inline struct crypto_skcipher *crypto_skcipher_reqtfm_check(
>>  {
>>       struct crypto_skcipher *tfm = crypto_skcipher_reqtfm(req);
>>
>> +     if (req->__onstack) {
>> +             if (WARN_ON(crypto_skcipher_alg(tfm)->base.cra_flags &
>> +                             CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC))
>> +                     return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +     }
>
> Sorry but I don't like imposing a run-time check on everybody when
> stack-based requests are the odd ones out.  If we're going to make
> this a run-time check (I'd much prefer a compile-time check, but I
> understand that this may involve too much churn), then please do it
> for stack-based request users only.

I'll continue to investigate alternatives, but I wanted to point out
that the struct change actually fills an existing padding byte (so no
change in memory usage) and marking this as an unlikely() test means
it wouldn't even be measurable due to the branch predictor (so no
change in speed). encrypt/decrypt entry is a tiny tiny fraction of the
actual work done during encryption/decryption, etc.

-Kees
Herbert Xu Sept. 11, 2018, 5:52 a.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> OK, so given that all SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK occurrences are
> updated in this series anyway, perhaps we should add
> skcipher_[en|de]crypt_onstack() flavors that encapsulate the
> additional check? Only question is how to enforce at compile time that
> those are used instead of the ordinary ones when using a stack
> allocated request. Would you mind using some macro foo here involving
> __builtin_types_compatible_p() ?

Something like a completely new type which in reality is just a
wrapper around skcipher:

	struct crypto_sync_skcipher {
		struct crypto_skcipher base;
	} tfm;

	tfm = crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher(...);

	crypto_sync_skcipher_encrypt(...)
	crypto_sync_skcipher_decrypt(...)

These functions would just be trivial inline functions around their
crypto_skcipher counterparts.

Cheers,
Herbert Xu Sept. 11, 2018, 5:53 a.m. UTC | #5
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 09:02:45AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> I'll continue to investigate alternatives, but I wanted to point out
> that the struct change actually fills an existing padding byte (so no
> change in memory usage) and marking this as an unlikely() test means
> it wouldn't even be measurable due to the branch predictor (so no
> change in speed). encrypt/decrypt entry is a tiny tiny fraction of the
> actual work done during encryption/decryption, etc.

The point is the ON_STACK request stuff is purely for backwards
compatibility and we don't want it to proliferate and pollute the
core API.

Cheers,
Kees Cook Sept. 13, 2018, 4:46 p.m. UTC | #6
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Herbert Xu
<herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> OK, so given that all SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK occurrences are
>> updated in this series anyway, perhaps we should add
>> skcipher_[en|de]crypt_onstack() flavors that encapsulate the
>> additional check? Only question is how to enforce at compile time that
>> those are used instead of the ordinary ones when using a stack
>> allocated request. Would you mind using some macro foo here involving
>> __builtin_types_compatible_p() ?
>
> Something like a completely new type which in reality is just a
> wrapper around skcipher:
>
>         struct crypto_sync_skcipher {
>                 struct crypto_skcipher base;
>         } tfm;
>
>         tfm = crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher(...);
>
>         crypto_sync_skcipher_encrypt(...)
>         crypto_sync_skcipher_decrypt(...)
>
> These functions would just be trivial inline functions around their
> crypto_skcipher counterparts.

This means new wrappers for the other helpers too, yes? For example:

        SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK(nreq, ctx->null);

        skcipher_request_set_tfm(nreq, ctx->null);
        skcipher_request_set_callback(nreq, req->base.flags, NULL, NULL);
        skcipher_request_set_crypt(nreq, req->src, req->dst, nbytes, NULL);

        return crypto_skcipher_encrypt(nreq);

For the above, we'd also need:

sync_skcipher_request_set_tfm()
sync_skcipher_request_set_callback()
sync_skcipher_request_set_crypt()

-Kees
Kees Cook Sept. 13, 2018, 5:40 p.m. UTC | #7
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Herbert Xu
> <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, so given that all SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK occurrences are
>>> updated in this series anyway, perhaps we should add
>>> skcipher_[en|de]crypt_onstack() flavors that encapsulate the
>>> additional check? Only question is how to enforce at compile time that
>>> those are used instead of the ordinary ones when using a stack
>>> allocated request. Would you mind using some macro foo here involving
>>> __builtin_types_compatible_p() ?
>>
>> Something like a completely new type which in reality is just a
>> wrapper around skcipher:
>>
>>         struct crypto_sync_skcipher {
>>                 struct crypto_skcipher base;
>>         } tfm;
>>
>>         tfm = crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher(...);
>>
>>         crypto_sync_skcipher_encrypt(...)
>>         crypto_sync_skcipher_decrypt(...)
>>
>> These functions would just be trivial inline functions around their
>> crypto_skcipher counterparts.
>
> This means new wrappers for the other helpers too, yes? For example:
>
>         SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK(nreq, ctx->null);
>
>         skcipher_request_set_tfm(nreq, ctx->null);
>         skcipher_request_set_callback(nreq, req->base.flags, NULL, NULL);
>         skcipher_request_set_crypt(nreq, req->src, req->dst, nbytes, NULL);
>
>         return crypto_skcipher_encrypt(nreq);
>
> For the above, we'd also need:
>
> sync_skcipher_request_set_tfm()
> sync_skcipher_request_set_callback()
> sync_skcipher_request_set_crypt()

Wait, I think I misunderstood you. Did you mean a new top-level thing
(tfm?) not a new request type?

That would mean at least replacing skcipher_request_set_tfm() with a
wrapper (since the tfm argument is different), but _not_
encrypt/decrypt like you mention. I could perform a type test in
SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK().

Globally:
- add struct crypto_sync_skcipher wrapper
- add crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher() to check non-ASYNC and request size
of actual tfm
- add skcipher_request_set_sync_tfm() to attach the wrapped tfm to the request
- SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK() would verify the tfm was a struct
crypto_sync_skcipher.

Two changes per user:
- change allocation to use new crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher() which does
the runtime checking
- change skcipher_request_set_tfm() to skcipher_request_set_sync_tfm()

This means struct skcipher_request is unchanged, along with
_set_callback, _set_crypt, _zero, and en/decrypt.

API misuse would be caught at build-time (via
SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK type checking) and any request size problems
would be caught at allocation time.

Does this sound like what you had in mind?

-Kees
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/crypto/skcipher.h b/include/crypto/skcipher.h
index 6e954d398e0f..3aabd5d098ed 100644
--- a/include/crypto/skcipher.h
+++ b/include/crypto/skcipher.h
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ 
 
 /**
  *	struct skcipher_request - Symmetric key cipher request
+ *	@__onstack: 1 if the request was allocated by SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK
  *	@cryptlen: Number of bytes to encrypt or decrypt
  *	@iv: Initialisation Vector
  *	@src: Source SG list
@@ -27,6 +28,7 @@ 
  *	@__ctx: Start of private context data
  */
 struct skcipher_request {
+	unsigned char __onstack;
 	unsigned int cryptlen;
 
 	u8 *iv;
@@ -139,9 +141,12 @@  struct skcipher_alg {
 	struct crypto_alg base;
 };
 
+/*
+ * This must only ever be used with synchronous algorithms.
+ */
 #define SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK(name, tfm) \
 	char __##name##_desc[sizeof(struct skcipher_request) + \
-		crypto_skcipher_reqsize(tfm)] CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR; \
+		crypto_skcipher_reqsize(tfm)] CRYPTO_MINALIGN_ATTR = { 1 }; \
 	struct skcipher_request *name = (void *)__##name##_desc
 
 /**
@@ -437,6 +442,12 @@  static inline struct crypto_skcipher *crypto_skcipher_reqtfm_check(
 {
 	struct crypto_skcipher *tfm = crypto_skcipher_reqtfm(req);
 
+	if (req->__onstack) {
+		if (WARN_ON(crypto_skcipher_alg(tfm)->base.cra_flags &
+				CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC))
+			return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+	}
+
 	if (crypto_skcipher_get_flags(tfm) & CRYPTO_TFM_NEED_KEY)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOKEY);