Re: [PATCH v7 03/13] crypto: ecdsa - Adjust tests on length of key parameters

From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
	<keyrings@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	<herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>, <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <saulo.alessandre@tse.jus.br>,
	<lukas@wunner.de>, <bbhushan2@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/13] crypto: ecdsa - Adjust tests on length of key parameters
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:11:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CZZLG1NOKZED.3VQXFGK57IEEU@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240320114725.1644921-4-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>

On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 1:47 PM EET, Stefan Berger wrote:
> In preparation for support of NIST P521, adjust the basic tests on the
> length of the provided key parameters to only ensure that the length of the
> x plus y coordinates parameter array is not an odd number and that each
> coordinate fits into an array of 'ndigits' digits. Mathematical tests on
> the key's parameters are then done in ecc_is_pubkey_valid_full rejecting
> invalid keys.
>
> The change is necessary since NIST P521 keys do not have keys with
> coordinates that each require 'full' digits (= all bits in u64 used).
> NIST P521 only requires 2 bytes (9 bits) in the most significant digit
> unlike NIST P192/256/384 that each require multiple 'full' digits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
> ---
>  crypto/ecdsa.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/crypto/ecdsa.c b/crypto/ecdsa.c
> index 6653dec17327..64e1e69d53ba 100644
> --- a/crypto/ecdsa.c
> +++ b/crypto/ecdsa.c
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ static int ecdsa_set_pub_key(struct crypto_akcipher *tfm, const void *key, unsig
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	if (keylen < 1 || (((keylen - 1) >> 1) % sizeof(u64)) != 0)
> +	if (keylen < 1 || ((keylen - 1) & 1) != 0)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	/* we only accept uncompressed format indicated by '4' */
>  	if (d[0] != 4)

Had to write this down to the paper to fully get it but yeah makes
sense (especially since I just truncated 4 KiB blocks to 1 KiB
in my doc update :-)) but yeah seems to be correct:

Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>

I guess that in this case I can give also tested-by since I actually
did test the formula (on paper):

Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>

As in general for tested-by's for patches I've sent or seen in
circulation there's bunch of convetions I've encountered so I do
agree that it is up to Herbert to decide the correct one.

BR, Jarkko