On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 12:04, Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/12/19 3:37 pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 11:06, Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/12/19 3:31 pm, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> Hello Keerthy,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 10:35, Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ard,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure if am the first one to report this. It seems like
> >>>> aes_expandkey is giving me different expansion over what i get with the
> >>>> older crypto_aes_expand_key which was removed with the below commit:
> >>>>
> >>>> commit 5bb12d7825adf0e80b849a273834f3131a6cc4e1
> >>>> Author: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Date: Tue Jul 2 21:41:33 2019 +0200
> >>>>
> >>>> crypto: aes-generic - drop key expansion routine in favor of library
> >>>> version
> >>>>
> >>>> The key that is being expanded is from the crypto aes(cbc) testsuite:
> >>>>
> >>>> }, { /* From NIST SP800-38A */
> >>>> .key = "\x8e\x73\xb0\xf7\xda\x0e\x64\x52"
> >>>> "\xc8\x10\xf3\x2b\x80\x90\x79\xe5"
> >>>> "\x62\xf8\xea\xd2\x52\x2c\x6b\x7b",
> >>>> .klen = 24,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The older version crypto_aes_expand_key output that passes the cbc(aes)
> >>>> decryption test:
> > ...
> >>>>
> >>>> The difference is between 52nd index through 59.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any ideas if this is expected?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this is expected. This particular test vector uses a 192 bit key,
> >>> so those values are DC/ignored.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the quick response. However with the new implementation
> >> decryption test case fails for me with wrong result.
> >
> > Can you share more details please? Platform, endianness, etc ..
>
> Ard,
>
> I am trying to get aes working on a yet to be upstream TI HW crypto
> Accelerator SA2UL. It is little endian.
>
> I had posted a series earlier this year:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/28/20
>
> The device expects the inverse key for decryption.
>
Could you elaborate? There is no such thing as an inverse *key*, only
an inverse *key schedule* which is used for the Equivalent Inverse
Cipher.
AES-192 expands the 24 byte key to 13 round keys consisting of 4
32-bit words each, and so the algorithm does not actually use the
contents of slots 52 and up in this case.
> In the earlier working version i was copying the ctx.key_enc[48] to
> ctx.key_enc[53] index of the ctx.key_enc array as the 24 bytes of
> decryption key to my hardware.
>
> Now as told earlier the 52nd & 53rd words are changed and hence i end up
> in wrong result.
>
> Fail:
>
> ctx.key_dec[48] = 0xf7b0738e & ctx.key_enc[48] = 0x6fa08be9
> ctx.key_dec[49] = 0x52640eda & ctx.key_enc[49] = 0x3c778c44
> ctx.key_dec[50] = 0x2bf310c8 & ctx.key_enc[50] = 0x472cc8e
> ctx.key_dec[51] = 0xe5799080 & ctx.key_enc[51] = 0x2220001
> ctx.key_dec[52] = 0x13eaf950 & ctx.key_enc[52] = 0x13eaf850
> ctx.key_dec[53] = 0xffff8000 & ctx.key_enc[53] = 0xffff8000
>
> Pass:
>
> ctx.key_dec[48] = 0xf7b0738e & ctx.key_enc[48] = 0x6fa08be9
> ctx.key_dec[49] = 0x52640eda & ctx.key_enc[49] = 0x3c778c44
> ctx.key_dec[50] = 0x2bf310c8 & ctx.key_enc[50] = 0x472cc8e
> ctx.key_dec[51] = 0xe5799080 & ctx.key_enc[51] = 0x2220001
> ctx.key_dec[52] = 0x105127e8 & ctx.key_enc[52] = 0x68342d29
> ctx.key_dec[53] = 0xffff8000 & ctx.key_enc[53] = 0xddd31195
>
The old code does the following for AES-192
#define loop6(i) do { \
t = ror32(t, 8); \
t = ls_box(t) ^ rco_tab[i]; \
t ^= ctx->key_enc[6 * i]; \
ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 6] = t; \
t ^= ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 1]; \
ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 7] = t; \
t ^= ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 2]; \
ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 8] = t; \
t ^= ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 3]; \
ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 9] = t; \
t ^= ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 4]; \
ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 10] = t; \
t ^= ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 5]; \
ctx->key_enc[6 * i + 11] = t; \
} while (0)
case AES_KEYSIZE_192:
ctx->key_enc[4] = get_unaligned_le32(in_key + 16);
t = ctx->key_enc[5] = get_unaligned_le32(in_key + 20);
for (i = 0; i < 8; ++i)
loop6(i);
break;
so while it happens to populate slots 52 and 53 as well (when i == 7),
the AES spec does not actually cover this, given that those values are
not actually used in the computation (and I am at a loss understanding
why it should make a difference in your case).
In any case, you can work around this by calculating the missing
values in your driver's expand_key() routine,
ctx.key_enc[52] = ctx.key_enc[51] ^ ctx.key_enc[46];
ctx.key_enc[53] = ctx.key_enc[52] ^ ctx.key_enc[47];
