On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 07:51:47PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 18:05, Arnd Bergmann <a...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
> >
> > gcc-11 points out a mismatch between the declaration and the definition
> > of poly1305_core_setkey():
> >
> > lib/crypto/poly1305-donna32.c:13:67: error: argument 2 of type ‘const
> > u8[16]’ {aka ‘const unsigned char[16]’} with mismatched bound
> > [-Werror=array-parameter=]
> > 13 | void poly1305_core_setkey(struct poly1305_core_key *key, const u8
> > raw_key[16])
> > |
> > ~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
> > In file included from lib/crypto/poly1305-donna32.c:11:
> > include/crypto/internal/poly1305.h:21:68: note: previously declared as
> > ‘const u8 *’ {aka ‘const unsigned char *’}
> > 21 | void poly1305_core_setkey(struct poly1305_core_key *key, const u8
> > *raw_key);
> >
> > This is harmless in principle, as the calling conventions are the same,
> > but the more specific prototype allows better type checking in the
> > caller.
> >
> > Change the declaration to match the actual function definition.
> > The poly1305_simd_init() is a bit suspicious here, as it previously
> > had a 32-byte argument type, but looks like it needs to take the
> > 16-byte POLY1305_BLOCK_SIZE array instead.
> >
>
> This looks ok to me. For historical reasons, the Poly1305 integration
> is based on an unkeyed shash, and both the Poly1305 key and nonce are
> passed as ordinary input, prepended to the actual data.
> poly1305_simd_init() takes only the key but not the nonce, so it
> should only be passed 16 bytes.
Well to be more precise, there are two conventions for using Poly1305. One
where it is invoked many times with the same 16-byte key and different 16-byte
nonces. And one where every invocation uses a unique key *and* nonce,
interpreted as a 32-byte "one-time key".
So that's why there's a mix of 16 and 32 byte "keys".
The naming "POLY1305_KEY_SIZE" assumes the second convention, which is a bit
confusing; it really should be called something like POLY1305_ONETIME_KEY_SIZE.
I guess the idea was that the one-time key convention is the more common one.
Anyway, the patch seems to be fine, as it uses the correct length in each
location. You can add:
Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebigg...@google.com>
- Eric
