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;
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:00:12 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
Cc:     keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
        James Morris <james.morris@microsoft.com>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KEYS: asym_tpm: fix buffer overreads in
 extract_key_parameters()
Message-ID: <YfQ9PEp9zi+xWvQk@sol.localdomain>
References: <20220113235440.90439-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <20220113235440.90439-2-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <YeM/YIUTEwL4jNf3@iki.fi>
 <Yedigyl+WNhB58MO@sol.localdomain>
 <YfFY/trrVl3vse5I@iki.fi>
 <YfFZPbKkgYJGWu1Q@iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YfFZPbKkgYJGWu1Q@iki.fi>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 04:22:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 04:59:47PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:40:48PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Avoid integer overflows when validating size fields; 'sz + 12' and
> > > > >   '4 + sz' overflowed if 'sz' is near U32_MAX.
> > > > 
> > > > So we have a struct tpm_header in include/linux/tpm.h. It would be way
> > > > more informative to use sizeof(struct tpm_header) than number 12, even
> > > > if the patch does not otherwise use the struct. It tells what it is, 12
> > > > does not.
> > > 
> > > I don't think that would be an improvement, given that the code is using
> > > hard-coded offsets.  If it's reading 4 bytes from cur + 8, it's much easier to
> > > understand that it needs 12 bytes than 'sizeof(struct tpm_header)' bytes.
> > > 
> > > I'd certainly encourage whoever is maintaining this code to change it to use
> > > structs instead, but that's not what this patch is meant to do.
> > 
> > I would consider dropping asym_tpm as it has no practical use cases
> > existing.
> 
> At least I have zero motivation to maintain it as it does not meet
> any quality standards and is based on insecure crypto algorithms.
> I neither have participated to its review process.

Fair enough, I'll send a patch to remove it then.

- Eric