Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57004 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728878AbfAPRM1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:12:27 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20190116164703.9267-1-vt@altlinux.org> References: <20190116164703.9267-1-vt@altlinux.org> To: Vitaly Chikunov Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Tudor Ambarus , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , =?UTF-8?q?Horia=20Geant=C4=83?= , Aymen Sghaier , Tom Lendacky , Gary Hook , Giovanni Cabiddu , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, qat-linux@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] akcipher: Introduce verify_rsa/verify for public key algorithms MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <24886.1547658740.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 17:12:20 +0000 Message-ID: <24887.1547658740@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Umm... What do I apply this patch to? In your modified public_key_verify_signature(): > - sg_init_one(&digest_sg, output, outlen); > - akcipher_request_set_crypt(req, &sig_sg, &digest_sg, sig->s_size, > + sg_init_one(&output_sg, output, outlen); > + akcipher_request_set_crypt(req, &sig_sg, &output_sg, sig->s_size, > outlen); Why is the output necessary? It was there for the decoded hash to be placed in prior to comparison - but now that's not necessary. > - ret = crypto_wait_req(crypto_akcipher_verify(req), &cwait); > + ret = crypto_wait_req(crypto_akcipher_verify(req, sig->digest, > + sig->digest_size), &cwait); I see sig->digest is passed in here. Should it be passed in in place of output_sg above? > - inst->alg.verify = pkcs1pad_verify; > + inst->alg.verify_rsa = pkcs1pad_verify; Is there a reason that pkcs1pad_verify() can't do the comparison? > - .verify = rsa_verify, > + .verify_rsa = rsa_verify, Likewise verify_rsa()? Granted, this might involve pkcs1pad_verify() dressing up the signature in the appropriate wrappings and passing it along to verify_rsa() to do the actual comparison there (ie. what pkcs1pad_verify_complete() does). > - .verify = caam_rsa_enc, > + .verify_rsa = caam_rsa_enc, I presume this is the reason - because this reuses its encrypt operation directly. But could this instead perform the comparison upon completion, say in rsa_pub_done()? > - .verify = qat_rsa_enc, > + .verify_rsa = qat_rsa_enc, Again, this could do the comparison, say, in qat_rsa_cb(). David