On Tue Mar 19, 2024 at 12:42 AM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
>
>
> On 3/18/24 17:12, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue Mar 12, 2024 at 8:36 PM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >> From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Adjust the calculation of the maximum signature size for support of
> >> NIST P521. While existing curves may prepend a 0 byte to their coordinates
> >> (to make the number positive), NIST P521 will not do this since only the
> >> first bit in the most significant byte is used.
> >>
> >> If the encoding of the x & y coordinates requires at least 128 bytes then
> >> an additional byte is needed for the encoding of the length. Take this into
> >> account when calculating the maximum signature size.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Tested-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c
> >> index e5f22691febd..16cc0be28929 100644
> >> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c
> >> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c
> >> @@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ static int software_key_query(const struct kernel_pkey_params *params,
> >> info->key_size = len * 8;
> >>
> >> if (strncmp(pkey->pkey_algo, "ecdsa", 5) == 0) {
> >> + int slen = len;
> >> /*
> >> * ECDSA key sizes are much smaller than RSA, and thus could
> >> * operate on (hashed) inputs that are larger than key size.
> >> @@ -246,8 +247,19 @@ static int software_key_query(const struct kernel_pkey_params *params,
> >> * Verify takes ECDSA-Sig (described in RFC 5480) as input,
> >> * which is actually 2 'key_size'-bit integers encoded in
> >> * ASN.1. Account for the ASN.1 encoding overhead here.
> >> + *
> >> + * NIST P192/256/384 may prepend a '0' to a coordinate to
> >> + * indicate a positive integer. NIST P521 never needs it.
> >> */
> >> - info->max_sig_size = 2 * (len + 3) + 2;
> >> + if (strcmp(pkey->pkey_algo, "ecdsa-nist-p521") != 0)
> >> + slen += 1;
> >
> > Just wondering the logic of picking between these:
> >
> > 1. "strncmp"
> > 2. "strcmp"
> >
>
> strncmp: prefix-matching
> strcmp: full string matching
Right, in first case is necessary because strcmp() would return "-1" for
the substring.
BR, Jarkko
