Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I think you can/should just use the natural alignment for "u64".
>
> For architectures that need 8-byte alignment, u64 will already be
> properly aligned. For architectures (like x86-32) that only need
> 4-byte alignment, you get it.

I should have added mention of that with my previous email. For the
parameters that are always a multiple of u64 -- namely, the key -- I
now do that in v5 of the patchset. So this is already done.

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, I stand corrected. But in any case, the use of __aligned(8) in
> the patchset ensures that things are fixed and that we don't have this
> issue.

I think you can/should just use the natural alignment for "u64".

For architectures that need 8-byte alignment, u64 will already be
properly aligned. For architectures (like x86-32) that only need
4-byte alignment, you get it.

              Linus

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 07:50:36PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> There's no 32-bit platform
>> that will trap on a 64-bit unaligned access because there's no such
>> thing as a 64-bit access there. In short, we're fine.
>
> ARMv7 LPAE is a 32bit architecture that has 64bit load/stores IIRC.
>
> x86 has cmpxchg8b that can do 64bit things and very much wants the u64
> aligned.
>
> Also, IIRC we have a few platforms where u64 doesn't carry 8 byte
> alignment, m68k or something like that, but yes, you likely don't care.

Indeed, I stand corrected. But in any case, the use of __aligned(8) in
the patchset ensures that things are fixed and that we don't have this
issue.

Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

[Daniel Micay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 768 bytes --]

On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Siphash needs a random secret key, yes. The point is that the hash
> > function remains secure so long as the secret key is kept secret.
> > Other functions can't make the same guarantee, and so nervous
> > periodic
> > key rotation is necessary, but in most cases nothing is done, and so
> > things just leak over time.
> 
> Actually those users that use rhashtable now have a much more
> sophisticated defence against these attacks, dyanmic rehashing
> when bucket length exceeds a preset limit.
> 
> Cheers,

Key independent collisions won't be mitigated by picking a new secret.

A simple solution with clear security properties is ideal.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 866 bytes --]