Re: [dm-devel] xts fuzz testing and lack of ciphertext stealing support

[Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>]

On 8/7/2019 11:58 PM, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@nxp.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:52 PM
>> To: Pascal Van Leeuwen <pvanleeuwen@verimatrix.com>; Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>; Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>; dm-
>> devel@redhat.com; linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] xts fuzz testing and lack of ciphertext stealing support
>>
>> On 7/26/2019 10:59 PM, Horia Geantă wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2019 1:31 PM, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote:
>>>> Ok, find below a patch file that adds your vectors from the specification
>>>> plus my set of additional vectors covering all CTS alignments combined
>>>> with the block sizes you desired. Please note though that these vectors
>>>> are from our in-house home-grown model so no warranties.
>>> I've checked the test vectors against caam (HW + driver).
>>>
>>> Test vectors from IEEE 1619-2007 (i.e. up to and including "XTS-AES 18")
>>> are fine.
>>>
>>> caam complains when /* Additional vectors to increase CTS coverage */
>>> section starts:
>>> alg: skcipher: xts-aes-caam encryption test failed (wrong result) on test vector 9,
>> cfg="in-place"
>>>
>> I've nailed this down to a caam hw limitation.
>> Except for lx2160a and ls1028a SoCs, all the (older) SoCs allow only for
>> 8-byte wide IV (sector index).
>>
> I guess it's easy to say now, but I already suspected a problem with full 16 
> byte random IV's. A problem with CTS itself seemed implausible due to the base
> vectors from the spec running fine and I did happen to notice that all 
> vectors from the spec only use up to the lower 40 bits of the sector number.
> While my vectors randomize all 16 bytes.
> 
> So I guess that means that 16 byte multiples (i.e. not needing CTS) with
> full 16 byte sector numbers will probably also fail on caam HW ...
> 	
Yes, the limitation applies for all input sizes.

It's actually mentioned in the commit that added xts support few years back:
c6415a6016bf ("crypto: caam - add support for acipher xts(aes)")

    sector index - HW limitation: CAAM device supports sector index of only
    8 bytes to be used for sector index inside IV, instead of whole 16 bytes
    received on request. This represents 2 ^ 64 = 16,777,216 Tera of possible
    values for sector index.

> As for the tweak size, with very close scrutiny of the IEEE spec I actually
> noticed some inconsistencies:
> 
> - the text very clearly defines the tweak as 128 bit and starting from an 
> *arbitrary* non-negative integer, this is what I based my implementation on
> 
> - all text examples and test vectors max out at 40 bits ... just examples,
> but odd nonetheless (why 40 anyway?)
> 
> - the example code fragment in Annex C actually has the S data unit number
> input as an u64b, further commented as "64 bits" (but then loops 16 times to
> convert it to a byte string ...)
> 
The input I received from our HW design team was something like:

- some P1619 drafts used LRW (instead of XTS), where the tweak "T"
was 16B-wide

- at some point P1619 drafts switched (and eventually standardized) XTS,
where "T" is no longer the tweak - "i" is the (public) tweak, "T" being
an intermediate (hidden) result in the encryption scheme

- since for XTS "i" is supposed to be the sector number,
there is no need to support 16B values - 8B being deemed sufficient

Agree, limiting "i" (XTS tweak) to 8B is out-of-spec - irrespective of the
usefulness of the full 16B.
That's why latest Freescale / NXP SoCs support 16B tweaks.

Thanks,
Horia