On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 10:03 +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > On 8/18/21 8:33 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 16:33 +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > PING > > > > Please, do not top-post. > > > > You are lacking Herbert Xu: > > > > $ scripts/get_maintainer.pl crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c > > David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:ASYMMETRIC KEYS) > > Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:CRYPTO API) > > "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (maintainer:CRYPTO API) > > keyrings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:ASYMMETRIC KEYS) > > linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list:CRYPTO API) > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list) > > > > > On 8/10/21 2:39 PM, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > > Hit kernel warning like this, it can be reproduced by verifying > > > > 256 > > > > bytes datafile by keyctl command. > > > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 344556 at crypto/rsa-pkcs1pad.c:540 > > > > pkcs1pad_verify+0x160/0x190 > > > > ... > > > > Call Trace: > > > > public_key_verify_signature+0x282/0x380 > > > > ? software_key_query+0x12d/0x180 > > > > ? keyctl_pkey_params_get+0xd6/0x130 > > > > asymmetric_key_verify_signature+0x66/0x80 > > > > keyctl_pkey_verify+0xa5/0x100 > > > > do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 > > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > > > > > > '.digest_size(u8) = params->in_len(u32)' leads overflow of an > > > > u8 > > > > Where is this statement? > > > > In function "static int asymmetric_key_verify_signature(struct > kernel_pkey_params *params, const void *in, const void *in2)" > > > > > value, > > > > so use u32 instead of u8 of digest. And reorder struct > > > > public_key_signature, it could save 8 bytes on a 64 bit > > > > machine. > > ~~~~~ > > 64-bit > > > > What do you mean by "could"? Does it, or does it > > not? > > > > > > > After reordering struct public_key_signature, sizeof(struct > public_key_signature) gets smaller than the original version. OK, then just state is as "it saves" instead of "it could save". Not a requirement but have you been able to trigger this for a kernel that does not have this fix? /Jarkko
