Re: [PATCH] Fix xoring of arch_get_random_long into crng->state array

[Neil Horman]

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:12:01PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:00:25PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > When _crng_extract is called, any arch that has a registered
> > arch_get_random_long method, attempts to mix an unsigned long value into
> > the crng->state buffer, it only mixes in 32 of the 64 bits available,
> > because the state buffer is an array of u32 values, even though 2 u32
> > are expected to be filled (owing to the fact that it expects indexes 14
> > and 15 to be filled).
> 
> Index 15 does get initialized; in fact, it's changed each time
> crng_reseed() is called.
> 
> The way things currently work is that we use state[12] and state[13]
> as 64-bit counter (it gets incremented each time we call
> _extract_crng), and state[14] and state[15] are nonce values.  After
> crng->state has been in use for five minutes, we reseed the crng by
> grabbing randomness from the input pool, and using that to initialize
> state[4..15].  (State[0..3] are always set to the ChaCha20 constant of
> "expand 32-byte k".)
> 
> If the CPU provides and RDRAND-like instruction (which can be the case
> for x86, PPC, and S390), we xor it into state[14].  Whether we xor any
> extra entropy into state[15] to be honest, really doesn't matter much.
> I think I was trying to keep things simple, and it wasn't worth it to
> call RDRAND twice on a 32-bit x86.  (And there isn't an
> arch_get_random_long_long.  :-)
> 
> Why do we do this at all?  Well, the goal was to feed in some
> contributing randomness from RDRAND when we turn the CRNG crank.  (The
> reason why we don't just XOR in the RDRAND into the output ohf the
> CRNG is mainly to assuage critics that hypothetical RDRAND backdoor
> has access to the CPU registers.  So we perturb the inputs to the
> CRNG, on the theory that if malicious firmware can reverse
> CHACHA20... we've got bigger problems.  :-)  We get up to 20 bytes out
> of a single turn of the CRNG crank, so whether we mix in 4 bytes or 8
> bytes from RDRAND, we're never going to be depending on RDRAND
> completely in any case.
> 
> The bottom line is that I'm not at all convinced it worth the effort
> to mix in 8 bytes versus 4 bytes from RDRAND.  This is really a CRNG,
> and the RDRAND inputs really don't change that.
> 
Ok, so what I'm getting is that the exclusion of the second 32 bit word here
from &crng->state[15], isn't an oversight, its just skipped because its not
worth taking the time for the extra write there, and this is not a bug.  I'm ok
with that.

Thanks for the explination
Neil

>     	       	      	     	   	  - Ted
>