On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Herbert Xu
<herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>
>> OK, so given that all SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK occurrences are
>> updated in this series anyway, perhaps we should add
>> skcipher_[en|de]crypt_onstack() flavors that encapsulate the
>> additional check? Only question is how to enforce at compile time that
>> those are used instead of the ordinary ones when using a stack
>> allocated request. Would you mind using some macro foo here involving
>> __builtin_types_compatible_p() ?
>
> Something like a completely new type which in reality is just a
> wrapper around skcipher:
>
> struct crypto_sync_skcipher {
> struct crypto_skcipher base;
> } tfm;
>
> tfm = crypto_alloc_sync_skcipher(...);
>
> crypto_sync_skcipher_encrypt(...)
> crypto_sync_skcipher_decrypt(...)
>
> These functions would just be trivial inline functions around their
> crypto_skcipher counterparts.
This means new wrappers for the other helpers too, yes? For example:
SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK(nreq, ctx->null);
skcipher_request_set_tfm(nreq, ctx->null);
skcipher_request_set_callback(nreq, req->base.flags, NULL, NULL);
skcipher_request_set_crypt(nreq, req->src, req->dst, nbytes, NULL);
return crypto_skcipher_encrypt(nreq);
For the above, we'd also need:
sync_skcipher_request_set_tfm()
sync_skcipher_request_set_callback()
sync_skcipher_request_set_crypt()
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
