On 4/1/21 9:38 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:47 AM Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 21:56, Simo Sorce <s...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 21:45 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:05, Simo Sorce <s...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 16:46 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:14 AM Dexuan Cui <de...@microsoft.com> wrote:
Hi,
MD5 was marked incompliant with FIPS in 2009:
a3bef3a31a19 ("crypto: testmgr - Skip algs not flagged fips_allowed in fips
mode")
a1915d51e8e7 ("crypto: testmgr - Mark algs allowed in fips mode")
But hibernation_e820_save() is still using MD5, and fails in FIPS mode
due to the 2018 patch:
749fa17093ff ("PM / hibernate: Check the success of generating md5 digest before
hibernation")
As a result, hibernation doesn't work when FIPS is on.
Do you think if hibernation_e820_save() should be changed to use a
FIPS-compliant algorithm like SHA-1?
I would say yes, it should.
PS, currently it looks like FIPS mode is broken in the mainline:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org/msg49414.html
FYI, SHA-1 is not a good choice, it is only permitted in HMAC
constructions and only for specified uses. If you need to change
algorithm you should go straight to SHA-2 or SHA-3 based hashes.
What is the reason for using a [broken] cryptographic hash here? if
this is just an integrity check, better use CRC32
Not really.
CRC32 is not really sufficient for integrity checking here AFAICS. It
might be made a fallback option if MD5 is not available, but making it
the default would be somewhat over the top IMO.
Would ghash be a better choice? It produces the same size digest as md5.
Does anyone have any other suggestions of algorithms to try?
Thanks,
Chris
If the integrity check is used exclusively to verify there were no
accidental changes and is not used as a security measure, by all means
I agree that using crc32 is a better idea.
Looking at 62a03defeabd58f74e07ca030d6c21e069d4d88e which introduced
this, it is only a best effort check which is simply omitted if md5
happens to be unavailable, so there is definitely no need for crypto
here.
Yes, it is about integrity checking only. No, CRC32 is not equivalent
to MD5 in that respect AFAICS.
Thanks!
