Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] x509: Add support for parsing x509 certs with
 ECDSA keys
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
To:     dhowells@redhat.com
Cc:     kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        patrick@puiterwijk.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20210201151910.1465705-4-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <202102111531.JYJl0c7G-lkp@intel.com>
 <b72f396e-fafa-cff3-cee2-a47ac5274dc4@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <58a980d7-ce90-2333-d5ae-014919e6c5d0@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:18:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b72f396e-fafa-cff3-cee2-a47ac5274dc4@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 2/11/21 12:30 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 2/11/21 3:03 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
>>
>>>> crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c:97: undefined reference to 
>>>> `parse_OID'
>
>
> So the issue is that? only ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE is selected 
> in this config and the selection of OID_REGISTRY is missing. I am not 
> sure whether ASYMMETRIC_PUBLIC_KEY_SUBTYPE should/could select 
> OID_REGISTRY or whether that would be wrong... ?


David,

 ? if the above is not desired then the following change would let us 
get rid of the offending parse_OID(). The below change is only for NIST 
p192 in this experiment but shows that we need to add additional 
strcmp() cases in x509_check_for_self_signed() since 
cert->sig->pkey_algo is set to "ecdsa". I am not sure whether we should 
derive from the signature which curve was used to create the signature 
so that cert->sig->pkey_algo could be more specific and the simple 
existing strcmp() would pass. So two possible ways to go forward. Which 
way should we go?

 ?? Stefan


diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c 
b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c
index 0aff4e584b11..71d83bb345c4 100644
--- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c
+++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_cert_parser.c
@@ -505,6 +505,8 @@ int x509_extract_key_data(void *context, size_t hdrlen,
 ??????????????????????? ctx->cert->pub->pkey_algo = "sm2";
 ??????????????????????? break;
 ??????????????? case OID_id_prime192v1:
+?????????????????????? ctx->cert->pub->pkey_algo = "ecdsa-nist-p192";
+?????????????????????? break;
 ??????????????? case OID_id_prime256v1:
 ??????????????????????? ctx->cert->pub->pkey_algo = "ecdsa";
 ??????????????????????? break;
diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c 
b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
index ae450eb8be14..3ebeed195b61 100644
--- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
+++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_public_key.c
@@ -129,7 +129,10 @@ int x509_check_for_self_signed(struct 
x509_certificate *cert)
 ??????? }

 ??????? ret = -EKEYREJECTED;
-?????? if (strcmp(cert->pub->pkey_algo, cert->sig->pkey_algo) != 0)
+printk(KERN_INFO "%s: %s ==? %s\n", __func__, cert->pub->pkey_algo, 
cert->sig->pkey_algo);
+?????? if (strcmp(cert->pub->pkey_algo, cert->sig->pkey_algo) != 0 &&
+?????????? strncmp(cert->pub->pkey_algo, "ecdsa-nist-p", 12) != 0 &&
+?????????? strcmp(cert->sig->pkey_algo, "ecdsa") != 0)
 ??????????????? goto out;

 ??????? ret = public_key_verify_signature(cert->pub, cert->sig);


>
>
> ??? Stefan
>