From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F65AA00E6 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:02:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429831B993; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:02:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCC21B95A for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 12:02:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jul 2019 03:02:42 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,470,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="364094025" Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2019 03:02:43 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:02:42 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) by fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:02:42 -0700 Received: from hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com (10.184.198.27) by fmsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.126.83) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:02:42 -0700 Received: from HASMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.134]) by hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.129]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:02:40 +0300 From: "Kusztal, ArkadiuszX" To: Shally Verma , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: "akhil.goyal@nxp.com" , "Trahe, Fiona" Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm Thread-Index: AQHVMbV6Xkv9IeQaakqByLm+ywdiNqa6Z6HwgAL8IICAA34rsIABMnRQ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:02:40 +0000 Message-ID: <06EE24DD0B19E248B53F6DC8657831551B27EFEA@hasmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190703153759.1508-1-arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com> <20190703153759.1508-2-arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com> <06EE24DD0B19E248B53F6DC8657831551B279302@hasmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com> <06EE24DD0B19E248B53F6DC8657831551B27DBFB@hasmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <06EE24DD0B19E248B53F6DC8657831551B27DBFB@hasmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: pl-PL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.600.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.184.70.11] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" To clarify bit more With [AK2] > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Kusztal, ArkadiuszX > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:44 PM > To: Shally Verma ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona ; > shally.verma@caviumnetworks.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa > algorithm >=20 > Hi Shally, >=20 > With [AK] >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shally Verma [mailto:shallyv@marvell.com] > > Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2019 3:14 PM > > To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX ; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona ; > > shally.verma@caviumnetworks.com > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX > > > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 6:10 PM > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona ; > > > shally.verma@caviumnetworks.com; Shally Verma > > > > Subject: [EXT] RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa > > > algorithm > > > > > > External Email > > > > > .. > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > > > > index 8672f21..486399c 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h > > > > @@ -111,23 +111,21 @@ enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type { > > > > */ > > > > enum rte_crypto_rsa_padding_type { > > > > RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_NONE =3D 0, > > > > - /**< RSA no padding scheme */ > > > > - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PKCS1_V1_5_BT0, > > > > - /**< RSA PKCS#1 V1.5 Block Type 0 padding scheme > > > > - * as described in rfc2313 > > > > + /**< RSA no padding scheme. > > > > + * In this case user is responsible for provision and verificatio= n > > > > + * of padding. > > > > */ > > > > - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PKCS1_V1_5_BT1, > > > > - /**< RSA PKCS#1 V1.5 Block Type 01 padding scheme > > > > - * as described in rfc2313 > > > > - */ > > > > - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PKCS1_V1_5_BT2, > > > > - /**< RSA PKCS#1 V1.5 Block Type 02 padding scheme > > > > - * as described in rfc2313 > > > > + RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_PKCS1, > > [Shally] My preference would still be to rename as PKCS1_V1.5 to align > > more to standard > [AK] - Agree. >=20 > > > > > > + /**< RSA PKCS#1 PKCS1-v1_5 padding scheme. For signatures block > > > > type 01, > > > > + * for encryption block type 02 are used. > > > > */ > > > > RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_OAEP, > > > > - /**< RSA PKCS#1 OAEP padding scheme */ > > > > + /**< RSA PKCS#1 OAEP padding scheme, can be used only for > > > > encryption/ > > > > + * decryption. > > > > + */ > > > > RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_PSS, > > > > - /**< RSA PKCS#1 PSS padding scheme */ > > > > + /**< RSA PKCS#1 PSS padding scheme, can be used only for > > > > signatures. > > > > + */ > > > > RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_TYPE_LIST_END > > > > }; > > > > > > ... > > > > > > struct rte_crypto_rsa_xform { > > > > rte_crypto_param n; > > > > - /**< n - Prime modulus > > > > - * Prime modulus data of RSA operation in Octet-string network > > > > + /**< n - Modulus > > > > + * Modulus data of RSA operation in Octet-string network > > > > * byte order format. > > > > */ > > > > > > > > @@ -397,9 +395,36 @@ struct rte_crypto_rsa_op_param { > > > > /**< > > > > * Pointer to data > > > > * - to be encrypted for RSA public encrypt. > > > > - * - to be decrypted for RSA private decrypt. > > > > * - to be signed for RSA sign generation. > > > > * - to be authenticated for RSA sign verification. > > > > + * > > > > + * Octet-string network byte order format. > > > > + * > > > > + * This field is an input to RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_ENCRYPT > > > > + * operation, and output to RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DECRYPT > > > > operation. > > > > + * > > > > + * When RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DECRYPT op_type used length in > > > > bytes > > > > + * of this field needs to be greater or equal to the length of > > > > + * corresponding RSA key in bytes. > > [Shally] better rephrased " When an op_type ASYM_OP_DECRYPT used, > > length of output buffer should be greater than or equal to RSA key > > modulus length > [AK] - RSA key size is a RSA modulus size, but can be changed. > > > > > > + * > > > > + * When padding field is set to RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_NONE > > > > + * returned data size will be equal to the size of RSA key > > > > + * in bytes. All leading zeroes will be preserved. > > > > + */ > > [Shally] Is it in context of OP_TYPE_DECRYPT? Even if it is > > PADDING_NONE, whether it is encrypted/decrypted, o/p length can vary > > between 0 .. RSA modulus length - 1 as perf rfc8017 > [AK] > example. 20 bytes was encrypted with 2048bit key PKCS_1.5 1. Padding > PKCS_1.5 set - Upon decryption we return 20 bytes of recovered message. > 2. Padding NONE set (padding done by user) - we return 236 bytes of paddi= ng > (one leading zero) | 20 bytes of message =3D 256 bytes. > (like in example test case I have added) 3. Padding NONE set (textbook rs= a) - > we return 236 bytes of zeroes | 20 bytes of message =3D 256 bytes. > > > > > > + > > > > + rte_crypto_param cipher; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * Pointer to data > > > > + * - to be decrypted for RSA private decrypt. > > > > + * > > > > + * Octet-string network byte order format. > > > > + * > > > > + * This field is an input to RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DECRYPT > > > > + * operation, and output to RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_ENCRYPT > > > > operation. > > > > + * > > > > + * When RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_ENCRYPT op_type used length in > > > > bytes > > > > + * of this field needs to be greater or equal to the length of > > > > + * corresponding RSA key in bytes. > > > > */ > > [Shally] recommend rephrasing as above > > > > > > > > > > rte_crypto_param sign; > > > > @@ -408,27 +433,88 @@ struct rte_crypto_rsa_op_param { > > > > * sign @ref RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN, buffer will be > > > > * over-written with generated signature. > > > > * > > > > - * Length of the signature data will be equal to the > > > > - * RSA prime modulus length. > > > > + * Octet-string network byte order format. > > > > + * > > > > + * When RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN op_type used length in bytes > > > > + * of this field needs to be greater or equal to the length of > > > > + * corresponding RSA key in bytes. > > [Shally] field ---> buffer > [AK] - Agreed > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > - enum rte_crypto_rsa_padding_type pad; > > > > - /**< RSA padding scheme to be used for transform */ > > > > - > > > > - enum rte_crypto_auth_algorithm md; > > > > - /**< Hash algorithm to be used for data hash if padding > > > > - * scheme is either OAEP or PSS. Valid hash algorithms > > > > - * are: > > > > - * MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 > > > > + rte_crypto_param message_to_verify; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * Pointer to the message 'm' that was signed with > > > > + * RSASP1 in RFC8017. > > >> It is the result of operation RSAVP1 > > > > + * defined in RFC8017, where field `sign` is the input > > > > + * parameter `s`. > > > > + * > > [Shally] This is confusing. Are you trying to say "this is output to VE= RIFY_OP > ? > > where output should be same as message buffer provided above? > > If yes, then why not just use that message buffer as an output of > > VERIFY_OP than adding a new one? > [AK] - it is output of signature verify (in openssl Public_Decrypt) for > PADDING_NONE case. It will be used to check if signature is correct. > In `message` then there could be original message. > But yes, we can use message as an output buffer, I just though it would b= e > more transparent. > Since user need to verify it by himself it is not that important to keep = original > message in `message` field, both ways will do. > Waiting for opinions. > > > > > > + * Used only when padding type is set to > > > > RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_NONE > > [Shally] I think regardless of padding, we can provide it as output to > > sign operation > [AK] - `Sign` is the place to put signature into. > > > > > > + * and `op_type` is set to RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY. > > > > + * > > > > + * Returned data size will be equal to the size of RSA key > > > > + * in bytes. All leading zeroes will be preserved. > > > > + * > > [Shally] Again, I think it should instead be mentioned as return size > > can be 0 ... modulus_len - 1 > > > > > > + * When RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY op_type used length in > > > > bytes > > > > + * of this field needs to be greater or equal to the length of > > > > + * corresponding RSA key in bytes. > > > > */ > > [Shally] There're multiple statements starting with when op_type =3D > > VERIFY, can we club them and make description shorter? > > > > > > > > > > - enum rte_crypto_auth_algorithm mgf1md; > > > > + enum rte_crypto_rsa_padding_type padding; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * In case RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_PKCS1 is selected, > > > > + * driver will distinguish between block type basing > > > > + * on rte_crypto_asym_op_type of the operation. > > > > + * > > > > + * Which padding type is supported by the driver can be > > > > + * found in in specific driver guide. > > [Shally] better rephrase " PMD expose padding type support in its > capability. > > Refer to > > > > > > + */ > > > > + enum rte_crypto_auth_algorithm padding_hash; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * - For PKCS1-v1_5 signature (Block type 01) this field > > > > + * represents hash function that will be used to create > > > > + * message hash. > > [Shally] Currently PMD input pre-computed hash atleast for PKCSV_1.5 .. > > does your hw support this offload for RSA? > > So far , in our testing we observe openssl does it already before > > calling private/public_key_enc so we should not be mentioning it in > > spec unless any hw provide that combined offload hash + rsa >=20 > [AK] - Openssl for PKCS1_5 signature use RSA_private_encrypt which does > not handle algorithmIdentifier. > https://www.openssl.org/docs/man1.0.2/man3/RSA_private_encrypt.html > And it is not said what data should be provided for signing. To be proper= ly > signed input buffer should be DER encoded concatenation of > algorithmIdentifier and message digest. > There would be much work to be done by user then: adding OID, computing > Hash of message, ASN.1 call. Waiting for comments on that. [AK2] - we do not specify what data should user provide to be signed. >=20 > > > > > > + * > > > > + * - For OAEP this field represents hash function that will > > > > + * be used to produce hash of the optional label. > > > > + * > > > > + * - For PSS this field represents hash function that will be use= d > > > > + * to produce hash (mHash) of message M and of M' (padding1 | > > > > mHash | salt) > > > > + * > > > > + * If not set driver will use default value. > > > > + */ > > > > + union { > > > > + struct { > > > > + enum rte_crypto_auth_algorithm mgf; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * Mask genereation function hash algorithm. > > > > + * > > > > + * If not set driver will use default value. > > > > + */ > > > > + rte_crypto_param label; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * Optional label, if driver does not support > > > > + * this option, optional label is just an empty string. > > > > + */ > > > > + } OAEP; > > > > + struct { > > > > + enum rte_crypto_auth_algorithm mgf; > > [Shally] Though it is mentioned in current spec, but I have similar > > doubt here do we need to provide this offload in spec? I will use > > terms from rfc8017 for further discussion. > > if we have any PMD whose HW provide full RSAES-OAEP offload i.e. > > doing EME-OAEP followed by RSAEP, then it make sense to have it in > > spec. But if we don't have any PMD example which support that full > > offload, then we can redefine spec only to support RSAEP and omit md an= d > mgf from spec. > > > [AK] - I thought to add PSS/OAEP to Openssl. Though OAEP and PSS for sure > will be implemented having custom MGF is not that necessary. Waiting for > opinions. >=20 > > > > > > > > + /**< > > > > + * Mask genereation function hash algorithm. > > > > + * > > > > + * If not set driver will use default value. > > > > + */ > > > > + int seed_len; > > > > + /**< > > > > + * Intended seed length. Nagative number has > > > special > > > > + * value as follows: > > > > + * -1 : seed len =3D length of output ot used hash > > > > function > > > > + * -2 : seed len is maximized > > > > + */ > > > > + } PSS; > > > > + }; > > > > /**< > > > > - * Hash algorithm to be used for mask generation if > > > > - * padding scheme is either OAEP or PSS. If padding > > > > - * scheme is unspecified data hash algorithm is used > > > > - * for mask generation. Valid hash algorithms are: > > > > - * MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 > > > > + * Padding type of RSA crypto operation. > > > > + * What are random number generator requirements and prequisites > > > > + * can be found specific driver guide. > > [Shally] I would suggest it to rephrase again " app should refer to > > PMD guide to check for RNG requirement and other pre-requisites used > > in hash generation. > > However , this feedback is relevant if we are retaining full OAEP offlo= ad. > > > > > > */ > > > > }; > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.1.0