RE: xts fuzz testing and lack of ciphertext stealing support

[Pascal Van Leeuwen <pvanleeuwen@verimatrix.com>]

> > > For XTS, you have this additional curve ball being thrown in called the "tweak".
> > > For encryption, the underlying "xts" would need to be able to chain the tweak,
> > > from what I've seen of the source the implementation cannot do that.
> >
> > You simply use the underlying xts for the first n - 2 blocks and
> > do the last two by hand.
> >
> 
> OK, so it appears the XTS ciphertext stealing algorithm does not
> include the peculiar reordering of the 2 final blocks, which means
> that the kernel's implementation of XTS already conforms to the spec
> for inputs that are a multiple of the block size.
> 
Yes, for XTS you effectively don't do CTS if it's a 16 byte multiple ...

> The reason I am not a fan of making any changes here is that there are
> no in-kernel users that require ciphertext stealing for XTS, nor is
> anyone aware of any reason why we should be adding it to the userland
> interface. So we are basically adding dead code so that we are
> theoretically compliant in a way that we will never exercise in
> practice.
> 
You know, having worked on all kinds of workarounds for silly irrelevant
(IMHO) corner cases in  the inside-secure hardware driver over the past
months just to keep testmgr happy, this is kind of ironic ...

Cipher text stealing happens to be a *major* part of the XTS specification
(it's not actually XTS without the CTS part!), yet you are suggesting not 
to implement it because *you* don't have or know a use case for it.
That seems like a pretty bad argument to me. It's not some minor corner 
case that's not supported.The implementation is just *incomplete*
without it.

> Note that for software algorithms such as the bit sliced NEON
> implementation of AES, which can only operate on 8 AES blocks at a
> time, doing the final 2 blocks sequentially is going to seriously
> impact performance. This means whatever wrapper we invent around xex()
> (or whatever we call it) should go out of its way to ensure that the
> common, non-CTS case does not regress in performance, and the special
> handling is only invoked when necessary (which will be never).
>
I pretty much made the same argument about all these driver workarounds
slowing down my driver fast path but that was considered a non-issue.

In this particular case, it should not need to be more than:

if (unlikely(size & 15)) {
  xts_with_partial_last_block();
} else {
  xts_with_only_full_blocks();
}

Regards,
Pascal van Leeuwen
Silicon IP Architect, Multi-Protocol Engines @ Verimatrix
www.insidesecure.com