On October 21, 2018 9:58:04 AM GMT, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 21 October 2018 at 10:07, James Bottomley
><James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 09:05 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> (+ James)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> On 20 October 2018 at 01:01, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
>>> <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > crypto_cfb_decrypt_segment() incorrectly XOR'ed generated
>keystream
>>> > with
>>> > IV, rather than with data stream, resulting in incorrect
>>> > decryption.
>>> > Test vectors will be added in the next patch.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > ---
>>> > crypto/cfb.c | 2 +-
>>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/crypto/cfb.c b/crypto/cfb.c
>>> > index a0d68c09e1b9..fd4e8500e121 100644
>>> > --- a/crypto/cfb.c
>>> > +++ b/crypto/cfb.c
>>> > @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int crypto_cfb_decrypt_segment(struct
>>> > skcipher_walk *walk,
>>> >
>>> > do {
>>> > crypto_cfb_encrypt_one(tfm, iv, dst);
>>> > - crypto_xor(dst, iv, bsize);
>>> > + crypto_xor(dst, src, bsize);
>>
>> This does look right. I think the reason the TPM code works is that
>it
>> always does encrypt/decrypt in-place, which is a separate piece of
>the
>> code which appears to be correct.
>>
>
>Yeah I figured that.
>
>So where is the TPM code that actually uses this code?
It was posted to the integrity list a while ago. I'm planning a repost shortly.
James
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
