Am Montag, dem 19.07.2021 um 11:57 +0200 schrieb Hannes Reinecke: > On 7/19/21 10:51 AM, Stephan Mueller wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 19.07.2021 um 10:15 +0200 schrieb Hannes Reinecke: > > > On 7/18/21 2:56 PM, Stephan Müller wrote: > > > > Am Sonntag, 18. Juli 2021, 14:37:34 CEST schrieb Hannes Reinecke: > > > > > > > The key is also used when using the ffdhe algorithm. > > > > > Note: I _think_ that I need to use this key for the ffdhe algorithm, > > > > > because the implementation I came up with is essentially plain DH > > > > > with > > > > > pre-defined 'p', 'q' and 'g' values. But the DH implementation also > > > > > requires a 'key', and for that I'm using this key here. > > > > > > > > > > It might be that I'm completely off, and don't need to use a key for > > > > > our > > > > > DH implementation. In that case you are correct. > > > > > (And that's why I said I'll need a review of the FFDHE > > > > > implementation). > > > > > But for now I'll need the key for FFDHE. > > > > > > > > Do I understand you correctly that the dhchap_key is used as the input > > > > to > > > > the > > > > DH - i.e. it is the remote public key then? It looks strange that this > > > > is > > > > used > > > > for DH but then it is changed here by hashing it together with > > > > something > > > > else > > > > to form a new dhchap_key. Maybe that is what the protocol says. But it > > > > sounds > > > > strange to me, especially when you think that dhchap_key would be, > > > > say, > > > > 2048 > > > > bits if it is truly the remote public key and then after the hashing > > > > it is > > > > 256 > > > > this dhchap_key cannot be used for FFC-DH. > > > > > > > > Or are you using the dhchap_key for two different purposes? > > > > > > > > It seems I miss something here. > > > > > > > No, not entirely. It's me who buggered it up. > > > I got carried away by the fact that there is a crypto_dh_encode_key() > > > function, and thought I need to use it here. > > > > Thank you for clarifying that. It sounds to me that there is no defined > > protocol (or if there, I would be wondering how the code would have worked > > with a different implementation). Would it make sense to first specify a > > protocol for authentication and have it discussed? I personally think it > > is a > > bit difficult to fully understand the protocol from the code and discuss > > protocol-level items based on the code. > > > Oh, the protocol _is_ specified: > > https://nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM-Express-Base-Specification-2_0-2021.06.02-Ratified-5.pdf > > It's just that I have issues translating that spec onto what the kernel > provides. according to the naming conventions there in figures 447 and following: - x and y: DH private key (kernel calls it secret set with dh_set_secret or encoded into param.key) - g^x mod p / g^y mod p: DH public keys from either end that is communicated over the wire (corresponding to the the DH private keys of x and y) - to set it, you initialize a dh request and set the public key to it with kpp_request_set_input. After performing the crypto_kpp_compute_shared_secret you receive the shared secret - g^xy mod p: DH shared secret - this is the one that is to be used for the subsequent hashing /HMAC operations as this is the one that is identical on both, the host and the controller. Ciao Stephan
