Hi Arek, Shally, Akhil, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 3:16 PM > To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>; Shally Verma <shal...@marvell.com>; > dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm > > Hi Akhil, Shally, Fiona > > I thought to split it in smaller patches, which from some could be applied in > this release. > And I can send these patches today. > > - 4 important enough to put in this release are: [Fiona] and 4 became 6 :) I agree with those if they can be sent for RC2. Better to get some improvement into 19.08 and continue work on the opens in a future release.
> 1. Remove RSA prime modulus nonsense. > 2. Add cipher field. > 3. Specify what data should be provided for signing (in current only working > case - openssl with pkcs1 > user would need to append ASN.1 DER encoded algorithmIdentifier and concat it > with message digest. > You can easily verify it with functions RSA_sign, RSA_verify from openssl). > 4. Remove BT0 padding. > 5. Padding NONE behavior > 6. Fix grammar and bad increment in simulate pkcs_1 function in test for > block type 1. > > - Others and opens are: > 1. Creating padding struct > 2. Padding parameters (seedlen, optional label etc) > 3. Leading zeroes questions. > 4. Random number requirements. > 5. Capabilities. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 3:51 PM > > To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; Shally Verma > > <shal...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm > > > > Hi Shally, > > > > Do you have further comments on this series? > > > > If yes, we may need to defer this to next release. As cryptodev change > > should > > not be there beyond RC2. In fact all of them should be closed by RC1. > > > > Regards, > > Akhil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 3:33 PM > > > To: Shally Verma <shal...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>; Trahe, Fiona > > > <fiona.tr...@intel.com> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm > > > > > > To clarify bit more > > > With [AK2] > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Kusztal, > > > > ArkadiuszX > > > > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:44 PM > > > > To: Shally Verma <shal...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > > Cc: akhil.go...@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; > > > > shally.ve...@caviumnetworks.com > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa > > > > algorithm > > > > > > > > Hi Shally, > > > > > > > > With [AK] > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Shally Verma [mailto:shal...@marvell.com] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2019 3:14 PM > > > > > To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; > > > > > dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Cc: akhil.go...@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; > > > > > shally.ve...@caviumnetworks.com > > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: rework api of rsa algorithm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 6:10 PM > > > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > > > > Cc: akhil.go...@nxp.com; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; > > > > > > shally.ve...@caviumnetworks.com; Shally Verma > > > > <shal...@marvell.com> > > > > > > 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 = 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 > > verification > > > > > > > + * 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /**< 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 > > > > padding (one leading zero) | 20 bytes of message = 256 bytes. > > > > (like in example test case I have added) 3. Padding NONE set > > > > (textbook rsa) - we return 236 bytes of zeroes | 20 bytes of message = > > 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 VERIFY_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 be 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 = > > > > > 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 <struct / API definition> > > > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > + 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 > > > > > > > > [AK] - Openssl for PKCS1_5 signature use RSA_private_encrypt which > > > > does not handle algorithmIdentifier. > > > > > > > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > > op > > > > > enssl.org%2Fdocs%2Fman1.0.2%2Fman3%2FRSA_private_encrypt.html& > > ;da > > > > > ta=02%7C01%7Cakhil.goyal%40nxp.com%7Cdb7fd9c8893144df755808d7045 > > 49 > > > > > 746%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369826336688 > > 53 > > > > > 558&sdata=FGOMjneOQsB7DRg8fKYHWhn5TKH3eO8QKA1bGbbt25w%3 > > D& > > > amp;reserved=0 > > > > And it is not said what data should be provided for signing. To be > > > > properly 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > + * - 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 > > > used > > > > > > > + * 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 and > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /**< > > > > > > > + * 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 = 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 > > > > > offload. > > > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > 2.1.0
