On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 18:52 +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > On 8/19/21 6:35 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > 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? > > > This kernel warning can be reproduced on debian11(Linux-5.10.0-8-amd64) > by the following script: > > RAWDATA=rawdata > SIGDATA=sigdata > > modprobe pkcs8_key_parser > > rm -rf *.der *.pem *.pfx > rm -rf $RAWDATA > dd if=/dev/random of=$RAWDATA bs=256 count=1 > > openssl req -nodes -x509 -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout key.pem -out cert.pem > -subj "/C=CN/ST=GD/L=SZ/O=vihoo/OU=dev/CN=xx.com/emailAddress=yy@xxxxxx" > > KEY_ID=`openssl pkcs8 -in key.pem -topk8 -nocrypt -outform DER | keyctl > padd asymmetric 123 @s` > > keyctl pkey_sign $KEY_ID 0 $RAWDATA enc=pkcs1 hash=sha1 > $SIGDATA > keyctl pkey_verify $KEY_ID 0 $RAWDATA $SIGDATA enc=pkcs1 hash=sha1 Thank you. I'll see if I can reproduce this when you send a new version (if not, it is not constraint for accepting to patch, but I'll still try). PS. Ignore the firstname lastname comment. I was not aware that in some cultures it is written like that (James Bottomley pointed this out). /Jarkko
