On 3/5/21 2:37 AM, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3/4/21 7:46 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> Tianjia,
>>
>> can you say whether SM2 support works for you before and after
>> applying this patch? I cannot verify it with an sm2 key I have
>> created using a sequence of commands like this:
>>
>> > modprobe sm2_generic
>> > id=$(keyctl newring test @u)
>> > keyctl padd asymmetric "" $id < sm2.der
>> add_key: Key was rejected by service
>> > keyctl padd asymmetric "" $id < eckeys/cert-prime192v1-0.der
>> 88506426
>>
>> The sm2 key is reject but the pime192v1 key works just fine. SM2
>> support neither worked for me before nor after this patch here. The
>> difference is that before it returned 'add_key: Package not installed'.
>>
>> This is my sm2 cert:
>>
>> > base64 < sm2.der
>> MIIBbzCCARWgAwIBAgIUfqwndeAy7reymWLwvCHOgYPU2YUwCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIwDTELMAkGA1UE
>>
>> AwwCbWUwHhcNMjEwMTI0MTgwNjQ3WhcNMjIwMTI0MTgwNjQ3WjANMQswCQYDVQQDDAJtZTBZMBMG
>>
>> ByqGSM49AgEGCCqBHM9VAYItA0IABEtiMaczdk46MEugmOsY/u+puf5qoi7JdLd/w3VpdixvDd26
>>
>> vrxLKL7lCTVn5w3a07G7QB1dgdMDpzIRgWrVXC6jUzBRMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSxOVnE7ihvTb6Nczb4
>>
>> /mow+HIc9TAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxOVnE7ihvTb6Nczb4/mow+HIc9TAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/
>>
>> MAoGCCqGSM49BAMCA0gAMEUCIE1kiji2ABUy663NANe0iCPjCeeqg02Yk4b3K+Ci/Qh4AiEA/cFB
>>
>> eJEVklyveRMvuTP7BN7FG4U8iRdtedjiX+YrNio=
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stefan
>>
>
> Yes, it works fine here. Your test method may be wrong. First of all,
> the certificate looks wrong, I don’t know if it is not sent
> completely. Secondly, the SM2 algorithm must be compiled with builtin.
> There will be a problem when it is compiled into a module. This is a
> restriction for SM2 signature with Za. you may refer to this discussion:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/12/1736
>
> In addition, give you a self-signed root certificate for my test:
>
> -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
> MIICLjCCAdWgAwIBAgIUEoozP6LzMYWh4gCpcWlzsUyfgsIwCgYIKoEcz1UBg3Uw
> bTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQ04xCzAJBgNVBAgMAkdTMQswCQYDVQQHDAJHdDENMAsGA1UE
> CgwEYmFiYTELMAkGA1UECwwCT1MxCzAJBgNVBAMMAmNhMRswGQYJKoZIhvcNAQkB
> FgxjYUB3b3JsZC5jb20wHhcNMjAwNDE1MTE1NDA3WhcNMzAwNDEzMTE1NDA3WjBt
> MQswCQYDVQQGEwJDTjELMAkGA1UECAwCR1MxCzAJBgNVBAcMAkd0MQ0wCwYDVQQK
> DARiYWJhMQswCQYDVQQLDAJPUzELMAkGA1UEAwwCY2ExGzAZBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEW
> DGNhQHdvcmxkLmNvbTBZMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqBHM9VAYItA0IABMTGRiHezKm5
> MiKHlyfa5Bv5jLxge/WRRG0nLNsZx1yf0XQTQBR/tFFjPGePEr7+Fa1CPgYpXExx
> i44coYMmQT6jUzBRMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSjd9GWIe98Ll9J0dquxgCktp9DrTAfBgNV
> HSMEGDAWgBSjd9GWIe98Ll9J0dquxgCktp9DrTAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MAoG
> CCqBHM9VAYN1A0cAMEQCIAvLWIfGFq85u/vVMLc5H1D/DnrNS0VhSkQA4daRO4tc
> AiABbeWENcQZDZLWTuqG9P2KDPOoNqV/QV/+0XjMAVblhg==
> -----END CERTIFICATE-----
>
> If you can, please add:
>
> Tested-by: Tianjia Zhang <[email protected]>
>
> good luck!
It works with your certificate! When I create the sm2 with OpenSSL on
Ubuntu, which seems to have sm2 support, or so one may think, I get this
type of signature:
I cannot create it with sm3, if that's how this is supposed to be signed:
> # openssl req -x509 -sm3 -newkey ec -pkeyopt ec_paramgen_curve:sm2
-keyout sm2key.pem -days 365 -subj '/CN=test' -nodes -outform der -out
sm2.der
parameter error "ec_paramgen_curve:sm2"
140735899258064:error:100AE081:elliptic curve
routines:EC_GROUP_new_by_curve_name:unknown group:crypto/ec/ec_curve.c:418:
140735899258064:error:100C508D:elliptic curve
routines:pkey_ec_ctrl:invalid curve:crypto/ec/ec_pmeth.c:231:
Using sha256 instead, which is the mistake:
> openssl req -x509 -sha256 -newkey ec -pkeyopt ec_paramgen_curve:sm2
-keyout sm2key.pem -days 365 -subj '/CN=test' -nodes -outform der -out
sm2-2nd.der
> openssl x509 -inform der -in sm2-2nd.der -noout -text
[...]
Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
30:45:02:20:05:72:15:b0:e8:f5:5a:27:d2:fb:f9:de:de:35:
05:b2:76:8a:6f:84:c1:54:db:c2:38:8c:d2:64:8b:67:23:01:
02:21:00:97:77:9e:42:fa:41:3d:d4:81:5e:5b:ad:9e:56:ad:
46:fc:5e:94:92:a6:07:2d:af:62:d2:2d:39:7b:71:f1:4a
Yours has this type of signature:
Signature Algorithm: 1.2.156.10197.1.501
30:44:02:20:0b:cb:58:87:c6:16:af:39:bb:fb:d5:30:b7:39:
1f:50:ff:0e:7a:cd:4b:45:61:4a:44:00:e1:d6:91:3b:8b:5c:
02:20:01:6d:e5:84:35:c4:19:0d:92:d6:4e:ea:86:f4:fd:8a:
0c:f3:a8:36:a5:7f:41:5f:fe:d1:78:cc:01:56:e5:86
Thanks anyway!
Stefan
Hi,
On 3/5/21 11:04 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 3/5/21 2:37 AM, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 3/4/21 7:46 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> Tianjia,
>>>
>>> can you say whether SM2 support works for you before and after
>>> applying this patch? I cannot verify it with an sm2 key I have
>>> created using a sequence of commands like this:
>>>
>>> > modprobe sm2_generic
>>> > id=$(keyctl newring test @u)
>>> > keyctl padd asymmetric "" $id < sm2.der
>>> add_key: Key was rejected by service
>>> > keyctl padd asymmetric "" $id < eckeys/cert-prime192v1-0.der
>>> 88506426
>>>
>>> The sm2 key is reject but the pime192v1 key works just fine. SM2
>>> support neither worked for me before nor after this patch here. The
>>> difference is that before it returned 'add_key: Package not installed'.
>>>
>>> This is my sm2 cert:
>>>
>>> > base64 < sm2.der
>>> MIIBbzCCARWgAwIBAgIUfqwndeAy7reymWLwvCHOgYPU2YUwCgYIKoZIzj0EAwIwDTELMAkGA1UE
>>>
>>> AwwCbWUwHhcNMjEwMTI0MTgwNjQ3WhcNMjIwMTI0MTgwNjQ3WjANMQswCQYDVQQDDAJtZTBZMBMG
>>>
>>> ByqGSM49AgEGCCqBHM9VAYItA0IABEtiMaczdk46MEugmOsY/u+puf5qoi7JdLd/w3VpdixvDd26
>>>
>>> vrxLKL7lCTVn5w3a07G7QB1dgdMDpzIRgWrVXC6jUzBRMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSxOVnE7ihvTb6Nczb4
>>>
>>> /mow+HIc9TAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSxOVnE7ihvTb6Nczb4/mow+HIc9TAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/
>>>
>>> MAoGCCqGSM49BAMCA0gAMEUCIE1kiji2ABUy663NANe0iCPjCeeqg02Yk4b3K+Ci/Qh4AiEA/cFB
>>>
>>> eJEVklyveRMvuTP7BN7FG4U8iRdtedjiX+YrNio=
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it works fine here. Your test method may be wrong. First of all,
>> the certificate looks wrong, I don’t know if it is not sent
>> completely. Secondly, the SM2 algorithm must be compiled with builtin.
>> There will be a problem when it is compiled into a module. This is a
>> restriction for SM2 signature with Za. you may refer to this discussion:
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/1/12/1736
>>
>> In addition, give you a self-signed root certificate for my test:
>>
>> -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
>> MIICLjCCAdWgAwIBAgIUEoozP6LzMYWh4gCpcWlzsUyfgsIwCgYIKoEcz1UBg3Uw
>> bTELMAkGA1UEBhMCQ04xCzAJBgNVBAgMAkdTMQswCQYDVQQHDAJHdDENMAsGA1UE
>> CgwEYmFiYTELMAkGA1UECwwCT1MxCzAJBgNVBAMMAmNhMRswGQYJKoZIhvcNAQkB
>> FgxjYUB3b3JsZC5jb20wHhcNMjAwNDE1MTE1NDA3WhcNMzAwNDEzMTE1NDA3WjBt
>> MQswCQYDVQQGEwJDTjELMAkGA1UECAwCR1MxCzAJBgNVBAcMAkd0MQ0wCwYDVQQK
>> DARiYWJhMQswCQYDVQQLDAJPUzELMAkGA1UEAwwCY2ExGzAZBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEW
>> DGNhQHdvcmxkLmNvbTBZMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqBHM9VAYItA0IABMTGRiHezKm5
>> MiKHlyfa5Bv5jLxge/WRRG0nLNsZx1yf0XQTQBR/tFFjPGePEr7+Fa1CPgYpXExx
>> i44coYMmQT6jUzBRMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSjd9GWIe98Ll9J0dquxgCktp9DrTAfBgNV
>> HSMEGDAWgBSjd9GWIe98Ll9J0dquxgCktp9DrTAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MAoG
>> CCqBHM9VAYN1A0cAMEQCIAvLWIfGFq85u/vVMLc5H1D/DnrNS0VhSkQA4daRO4tc
>> AiABbeWENcQZDZLWTuqG9P2KDPOoNqV/QV/+0XjMAVblhg==
>> -----END CERTIFICATE-----
>>
>> If you can, please add:
>>
>> Tested-by: Tianjia Zhang <[email protected]>
>>
>> good luck!
>
>
> It works with your certificate! When I create the sm2 with OpenSSL on
> Ubuntu, which seems to have sm2 support, or so one may think, I get this
> type of signature:
>
>
> I cannot create it with sm3, if that's how this is supposed to be signed:
>
> > # openssl req -x509 -sm3 -newkey ec -pkeyopt ec_paramgen_curve:sm2
> -keyout sm2key.pem -days 365 -subj '/CN=test' -nodes -outform der -out
> sm2.der
> parameter error "ec_paramgen_curve:sm2"
> 140735899258064:error:100AE081:elliptic curve
> routines:EC_GROUP_new_by_curve_name:unknown group:crypto/ec/ec_curve.c:418:
> 140735899258064:error:100C508D:elliptic curve
> routines:pkey_ec_ctrl:invalid curve:crypto/ec/ec_pmeth.c:231:
>
>
> Using sha256 instead, which is the mistake:
>
> > openssl req -x509 -sha256 -newkey ec -pkeyopt ec_paramgen_curve:sm2
> -keyout sm2key.pem -days 365 -subj '/CN=test' -nodes -outform der -out
> sm2-2nd.der
>
> > openssl x509 -inform der -in sm2-2nd.der -noout -text
>
> [...]
>
> Signature Algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256
> 30:45:02:20:05:72:15:b0:e8:f5:5a:27:d2:fb:f9:de:de:35:
> 05:b2:76:8a:6f:84:c1:54:db:c2:38:8c:d2:64:8b:67:23:01:
> 02:21:00:97:77:9e:42:fa:41:3d:d4:81:5e:5b:ad:9e:56:ad:
> 46:fc:5e:94:92:a6:07:2d:af:62:d2:2d:39:7b:71:f1:4a
>
>
> Yours has this type of signature:
>
> Signature Algorithm: 1.2.156.10197.1.501
> 30:44:02:20:0b:cb:58:87:c6:16:af:39:bb:fb:d5:30:b7:39:
> 1f:50:ff:0e:7a:cd:4b:45:61:4a:44:00:e1:d6:91:3b:8b:5c:
> 02:20:01:6d:e5:84:35:c4:19:0d:92:d6:4e:ea:86:f4:fd:8a:
> 0c:f3:a8:36:a5:7f:41:5f:fe:d1:78:cc:01:56:e5:86
>
> Thanks anyway!
>
>
> Stefan
>
I guess it may be that your openssl version is too low. At present, only
openssl 3.0.0 (still in the alpha stage and not yet officially released)
can support the certificate of the SM2-with-SM3 algorithm combination.
This is the command I used in openssl-3.0.0-alpha6:
openssl ecparam -genkey -name SM2 -text -out ca.key
openssl req -new \
-x509 -days 3650 \
-sm3 -sigopt "distid:1234567812345678" \
-key ca.key \
-out ca.crt \
-subj "/C=CN/ST=GS/L=Gt/O=baba/OU=OS/CN=ca/[email protected]"