Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 10:09:23 +0300
From:   Vitaly Chikunov <vt@altlinux.org>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Horia =?utf-8?Q?Geant=C4=83?= <horia.geanta@nxp.com>,
        Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@nxp.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Gary Hook <gary.hook@amd.com>,
        Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@intel.com>,
        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 v4] akcipher: new verify API for public key algorithms
Message-ID: <20190201070922.nvopn4kxz7jbcoey@altlinux.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Horia =?utf-8?Q?Geant=C4=83?= <horia.geanta@nxp.com>,
        Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@nxp.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Gary Hook <gary.hook@amd.com>,
        Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@intel.com>,
        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
References: <20190125180116.13702-1-vt@altlinux.org>
 <20190201062655.hmxeqo5hprhcgtfx@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190201062655.hmxeqo5hprhcgtfx@gondor.apana.org.au>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215-106-ac61c7
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Herbert,

On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 02:26:55PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:01:16PM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> >
> > @@ -781,36 +780,17 @@ static int tpm_key_verify_signature(const struct key *key,
> >  	if (!req)
> >  		goto error_free_tfm;
> >  
> > -	ret = -ENOMEM;
> > -	outlen = crypto_akcipher_maxsize(tfm);
> > -	output = kmalloc(outlen, GFP_KERNEL);
> > -	if (!output)
> > -		goto error_free_req;
> > -
> > -	sg_init_one(&sig_sg, sig->s, sig->s_size);
> > -	sg_init_one(&digest_sg, output, outlen);
> > -	akcipher_request_set_crypt(req, &sig_sg, &digest_sg, sig->s_size,
> > -				   outlen);
> > +	sg_init_table(&src_sg, 2);
> > +	sg_set_buf(&src_sg[0], sig->s, sig->s_size);
> > +	sg_set_buf(&src_sg[1], sig->digest, sig->digest_size);
> > +	akcipher_request_set_crypt(req, &src_sg, NULL, sig->s_size,
> > +				   sig->digest_size);
> 
> It's not clear that sig->digest is guaranteed to be kmalloc memory.
> In any case, it's best not to mix unrelated changes in a single
> patch.  So please keep the kmalloc on output and then copy
> sig->digest into it and put output into the SG list.

It is not guaranteed that sig->s will be kmalloc memory either. (Except
we know it for sure like we know the same about sig->digest).

You can see in public_key_signature_free() that both fields are kfree'd
together.

So, I don't understand why we should treat sig->digest differently than
sig->s.

I was just removing kmalloc'ed output as crypto_akcipher_verify() does
not need any output anymore. So, it's not some sort of mixing unrelated
changes, from my point of view.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt