From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29887C433EF for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 18:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:42884 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n4ou4-0000ny-Rp for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 13:51:24 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52150) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n4olP-0004Yx-Rx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 13:42:28 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:44998) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n4olN-0007lc-2m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 13:42:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1641321743; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Aoxo7+79BmOX+qWQv5rAMn3CsT1/42lt6CWxUWPedTs=; b=GRixTIxhVm3XEpLkuWkjs5JknzS3NqxrvX+cfIntqmddL9xt61fOwzqqr/hX8I1HuobJgs Wg8aLI2bhhujD6awksGzHx1nS8Ssl8MXy5+HX88PtxR/dt5ETfm1aHDQ6FkzY4PXBWPGZ9 sUvt7cbUdNnyVUNWEbhoHB8JV/mGHpU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-531-ERRMN8SRN7maCe1FprVBAA-1; Tue, 04 Jan 2022 13:42:18 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ERRMN8SRN7maCe1FprVBAA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD17190A7A1; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 18:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.22.32.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B49310A4B23; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 18:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 18:42:13 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Henry Kleynhans Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [crypto] Only verify CA certs in chain of trust Message-ID: References: <20211222150600.37677-1-henry.kleynhans@gmail.com> <20211222150600.37677-2-henry.kleynhans@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.3 (2021-09-10) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.37, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: Henry Kleynhans , "henry.kleynhans@fb.com" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 03:54:08PM +0000, Henry Kleynhans wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > This patch tightens the CA verification code to only check the > issuer chain of the client cert. I think this will still not > catch expired/invalid certs if the client and server certs have > different issuer chains; so maybe this too is not quite the > correct fix. Let me know what you think. Different issuer chains is not going to be very common/typical. So what you've done in this patch is at least pretty decent for the common case, so will catch most user's mistakes. Let me have a think about whether we can do anything better without making the code too painful Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|