Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 11:07:12 +0200
From: Salvatore Mesoraca <>
To: Herbert Xu <>
	Kernel Hardening <>,, 
	"David S. Miller" <>, Kees Cook <>, 
	Eric Biggers <>, Laura Abbott <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] crypto: api - avoid VLA use

2018-04-08 5:16 GMT+02:00 Herbert Xu <>:
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 08:38:20PM +0200, Salvatore Mesoraca wrote:
>>  int crypto_init_cipher_ops(struct crypto_tfm *tfm)
>>  {
>> +     const unsigned long alignmask = crypto_tfm_alg_alignmask(tfm);
>> +     const unsigned int size = crypto_tfm_alg_blocksize(tfm);
>>       struct cipher_tfm *ops = &tfm->crt_cipher;
>>       struct cipher_alg *cipher = &tfm->__crt_alg->cra_cipher;
>> +     if (size > MAX_BLOCKSIZE || alignmask > MAX_ALIGNMASK)
>> +             return -EINVAL;
>> +
> This check should be done when the algorithm is registered.  Perhaps
> crypto_check_alg.

Please correct me if I'm wrong:
isn't crypto_check_alg invoked also during hashing algorithm registration?
In this patch-set I'm dealing only with ciphers, because the maximum
block size (16)
is relatively small and it's also the most common block size with
ciphers (maybe I should
have explicitly referenced ciphers in the macro names, my bad).
I don't think that it would be OK to use a similar approach for hashes
too, because some
of them have block size >= 1024 bytes.

Thank you for your time,


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.