From: joeyli Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] asymmetric keys: implement EMSA_PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE in rsa Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:17:49 +0800 Message-ID: <1377512269.27967.29.camel__34476.825365755$1377512372$gmane$org@linux-s257.site> References: <1377169317-5959-1-git-send-email-jlee@suse.com> <1377169317-5959-3-git-send-email-jlee@suse.com> <20130825155309.GA5171@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, opensuse-kernel@opensuse.org, David Howells , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matthew Garrett , Len Brown , Josh Boyer , Vojtech Pavlik , Matt Fleming , James Bottomley , Greg KH , JKosina@suse.com, Rusty Russell , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Michal Marek , Gary Lin , Vivek Goyal To: Pavel Machek Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130825155309.GA5171@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Hi Pavel,=20 =46irst, thanks for your review! =E6=96=BC =E6=97=A5=EF=BC=8C2013-08-25 =E6=96=BC 17:53 +0200=EF=BC=8CPa= vel Machek =E6=8F=90=E5=88=B0=EF=BC=9A > On Thu 2013-08-22 19:01:41, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote: > > Implement EMSA_PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE [RFC3447 sec 9.2] in rsa.c. It's t= he > > first step of signature generation operation > > (RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5-SIGN). >=20 > Is this your own code, or did you copy it from somewhere? >=20 It's my own code, development base on RSA PKCS#1 spec. So the naming of variables are match with PKCS#1 spec. > > + if (!T) > > + goto error_T; > > + > > + memcpy(T, RSA_ASN1_templates[hash_algo].data, RSA_ASN1_templates[= hash_algo].size); > > + memcpy(T + RSA_ASN1_templates[hash_algo].size, pks->digest, pks->= digest_size); > > + > > + /* 3) check If emLen < tLen + 11, output "intended encoded messag= e length too short" */ > > + if (emLen < tLen + 11) { > > + ret =3D EINVAL; > > + goto error_emLen; > > + } >=20 > Normal kernel calling convention is 0 / -EINVAL. Yes, here is my mistake, I will modify it. >=20 > > + memcpy(EM + 2, PS, emLen - tLen - 3); > > + EM[2 + emLen - tLen - 3] =3D 0x00; > > + memcpy(EM + 2 + emLen - tLen - 3 + 1, T, tLen); >=20 > ThisDoesNotLookLikeKernelCode, NoCamelCase, please. >=20 Thanks for you point out, I will change it. > > + *_EM =3D EM; >=20 > And we don't usually use _ prefix like this. >=20 Thanks! I will change it. >=20 > > --- a/include/crypto/public_key.h > > +++ b/include/crypto/public_key.h > > @@ -110,6 +110,8 @@ extern void public_key_destroy(void *payload); > > struct public_key_signature { > > u8 *digest; > > u8 digest_size; /* Number of bytes in digest */ > > + u8 *S; /* signature S of length k octets */ >=20 > u8 *signature? Yes, this 'S' is signature. I put the naming full match with spec for development, I will change it to match kernel rule. e.g. signature_S >=20 > > + size_t k; /* length k of signature S */ >=20 > u8 *signature_length. >=20 I will use signature_leng_k to also match with PKCS#1 spec, I think it'= s better for review source code with the spec for debugging. Thanks a lot! Joey Lee