On 1/7/21 6:35 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alexandru,
Hi Simon,
(pun alert!) A lot of your comments have to do with comments. I use
comments as a tool to add something of value to code. When the code is
self-documenting, comments don't help much.
See kernel coding style chapter 8.
What comments can do, is increase code size and break code flow -- there
is a cost to having them. I'm certain you've seen functions that need to
be scrolled up and down because of a huge comment smack in the middle.
I'll address individual comment comments below.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 at 14:00, Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> wrote:
mkimage supports rsa2048, and rsa4096 signatures. With newer silicon
now supporting hardware-accelerated ECDSA, it makes sense to expand
signing support to elliptic curves.
Implement host-side ECDSA signing and verification with libcrypto.
Device-side implementation of signature verification is beyond the
scope of this patch.
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>
---
common/image-sig.c | 14 +-
include/u-boot/ecdsa.h | 27 ++++
lib/ecdsa/ecdsa-libcrypto.c | 300 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/Makefile | 3 +
4 files changed, 342 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 include/u-boot/ecdsa.h
create mode 100644 lib/ecdsa/ecdsa-libcrypto.c
diff --git a/common/image-sig.c b/common/image-sig.c
index 21dafe6b91..2548b3eb0f 100644
--- a/common/image-sig.c
+++ b/common/image-sig.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
#endif /* !USE_HOSTCC*/
#include <image.h>
+#include <u-boot/ecdsa.h>
#include <u-boot/rsa.h>
#include <u-boot/hash-checksum.h>
@@ -82,8 +83,17 @@ struct crypto_algo crypto_algos[] = {
.sign = rsa_sign,
.add_verify_data = rsa_add_verify_data,
.verify = rsa_verify,
- }
-
+ },
+#if defined(USE_HOSTCC)
+ /* Currently, only host support exists for ECDSA */
+ {
+ .name = "ecdsa256",
+ .key_len = ECDSA256_BYTES,
+ .sign = ecdsa_sign,
+ .add_verify_data = ecdsa_add_verify_data,
+ .verify = ecdsa_verify,
+ },
+#endif
};
struct padding_algo padding_algos[] = {
diff --git a/include/u-boot/ecdsa.h b/include/u-boot/ecdsa.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a13a7267e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/u-boot/ecdsa.h
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ */
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2020, Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>.
+ */
+
+#ifndef _ECDSA_H
+#define _ECDSA_H
+
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <image.h>
+
+/**
+ * crypto_algo API impementation for ECDSA;
+ * @see "struct crypt_algo"
+ * @{
+ */
+int ecdsa_sign(struct image_sign_info *info, const struct image_region
region[],
+ int region_count, uint8_t **sigp, uint *sig_len);
+int ecdsa_verify(struct image_sign_info *info,
+ const struct image_region region[], int region_count,
+ uint8_t *sig, uint sig_len);
+int ecdsa_add_verify_data(struct image_sign_info *info, void *keydest);
Please always add full comments when you export functions, or have a
non-trivial static function.
I disagree. These functions implement and are designed to be used via
the crypt_algo API. One should understand the crypt_algo API, and any
deviations in behavior would be a bug. So there is no scenario in which
comments here would be useful.
+/** @} */
+
+#define ECDSA256_BYTES (256 / 8)
+
+#endif
diff --git a/lib/ecdsa/ecdsa-libcrypto.c b/lib/ecdsa/ecdsa-libcrypto.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ff491411d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/ecdsa/ecdsa-libcrypto.c
@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+/*
+ * ECDSA image signing implementation using libcrypto backend
+ *
+ * The signature is a binary representation of the (R, S) points, padded to the
+ * key size. The signature will be (2 * key_size_bits) / 8 bytes.
+ *
+ * Deviations from behavior of RSA equivalent:
+ * - Verification uses private key. This is not technically required, but a
+ * limitation on how clumsy the openssl API is to use.
I'm not quite sure what the implications are on this. If this is
public key crypto, the private key is not available, so how can you
verify with it?
I presume this is fixable, but only as an academic exercise. This file
is for mkimage, which doesn't do standalone verification. The way you
verify is in u-boot. That is the subject of another series.
+ * - Handling of keys and key paths:
+ * - The '-K' key directory option must contain path to the key file,
+ * instead of the key directory.
If we make this change we should update RSA to do the same.
Of course, but is there agreement as to this direction? There seem to be
some hidden subtleties to key-name-hint that I don't fully understand yet.
+ * - No assumptions are made about the file extension of the key
+ * - The 'key-name-hint' property is only used for naming devicetree nodes,
+ * but is not used for looking up keys on the filesystem.
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2020, Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>
+ */
+
+#include <u-boot/ecdsa.h>
+#include <u-boot/fdt-libcrypto.h>
+#include <openssl/ssl.h>
+#include <openssl/ec.h>
+#include <openssl/bn.h>
+
+struct signer {
+ EVP_PKEY *evp_key;
+ EC_KEY *ecdsa_key;
+ void *hash;
+ void *signature; /* Do not free() !*/
need comments
Is this for the sake of having comments, or is there something of value
that I've missed? The only member that could be confusing is evp_key,
but that becomes obvious in the context of libcrypto.
+};
+
+static int alloc_ctx(struct signer *ctx, const struct image_sign_info *info)
+{
+ memset(ctx, 0, sizeof(*ctx));
+
+ if (!OPENSSL_init_ssl(0, NULL)) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Failure to init SSL library\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ ctx->hash = malloc(info->checksum->checksum_len);
+ ctx->signature = malloc(info->crypto->key_len * 2);
+
+ if (!ctx->hash || !ctx->signature)
+ return -1;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void free_ctx(struct signer *ctx)
+{
+ if (ctx->ecdsa_key)
+ EC_KEY_free(ctx->ecdsa_key);
+
+ if (ctx->evp_key)
+ EVP_PKEY_free(ctx->evp_key);
+
+ if (ctx->hash)
+ free(ctx->hash);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Convert an ECDSA signature to raw format
+ *
+ * openssl DER-encodes 'binary' signatures. We want the signature in a raw
+ * (R, S) point pair. So we have to dance a bit.
+ */
+static void ecdsa_sig_encode_raw(void *buf, const ECDSA_SIG *sig, size_t order)
+{
+ int point_bytes = order;
+ const BIGNUM *r, *s;
+ uintptr_t s_buf;
+
+ ECDSA_SIG_get0(sig, &r, &s);
+ s_buf = (uintptr_t)buf + point_bytes;
+ BN_bn2binpad(r, buf, point_bytes);
+ BN_bn2binpad(s, (void *)s_buf, point_bytes);
+}
+
+static ECDSA_SIG *ecdsa_sig_from_raw(void *buf, size_t order)
+{
+ int point_bytes = order;
+ uintptr_t s_buf;
+ ECDSA_SIG *sig;
+ BIGNUM *r, *s;
+
+ sig = ECDSA_SIG_new();
+ if (!sig)
+ return NULL;
+
+ s_buf = (uintptr_t)buf + point_bytes;
+ r = BN_bin2bn(buf, point_bytes, NULL);
+ s = BN_bin2bn((void *)s_buf, point_bytes, NULL);
+ ECDSA_SIG_set0(sig, r, s);
+
+ return sig;
+}
+
+static size_t ecdsa_key_size_bytes(const EC_KEY *key)
I think all of these functions need a comment.
The function names are self-explanatory. One point of confusion would be
the meaning of raw signature -- this is already explained at the top.
+{
+ const EC_GROUP *group;
+
+ group = EC_KEY_get0_group(key);
+ return EC_GROUP_order_bits(group) / 8;
+}
+
+static int read_key(struct signer *ctx, const char *key_name)
+{
+ FILE *f = fopen(key_name, "r");
+
+ if (!f) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Can not get key file '%s'\n", key_name);
+ return -1;
return -EIO perhaps?
Good idea!
+ }
+
+ ctx->evp_key = PEM_read_PrivateKey(f, NULL, NULL, NULL);
+ fclose(f);
+ if (!ctx->evp_key) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Can not read key from '%s'\n", key_name);
+ return -1;
These should return useful error number: -1 is -EPERM which doesn't
seem right here.
-EIO again?
+ }
+
+ if (EVP_PKEY_id(ctx->evp_key) != EVP_PKEY_EC) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "'%s' is not an ECDSA key\n", key_name);
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ ctx->ecdsa_key = EVP_PKEY_get1_EC_KEY(ctx->evp_key);
+ if (!ctx->ecdsa_key)
+ fprintf(stderr, "Can not extract ECDSA key\n");
+
+ return (ctx->ecdsa_key) ? 0 : -1;
+}
+
+static int prepare_ctx(struct signer *ctx, const struct image_sign_info *info)
+{
+ const char *kname = info->keydir;
+ int key_len_bytes;
+
+ if (alloc_ctx(ctx, info) < 0)
That function returns 0 on success, so you don't need the < 0. A
comment on the above function would make that clear.
I think the following would be less clear:
if (alloc_ctx())
error();
Does alloc_ctx() return an int? Does it return memory? It has (m)alloc
in the name. By having a '< 0' in the predicate, it's now clear that
this can't return a pointer. So yes, you might scratch your head as to
why there's a '< 0' that's not needed. Also, you know that this function
returns an error code without needing to scroll up to its definition. A
comment above the function wouldn't eliminate the need to scroll up.
+ return -1;
+
+ if (read_key(ctx, kname) < 0)
+ return -1;
+
+ key_len_bytes = ecdsa_key_size_bytes(ctx->ecdsa_key);
+ if (key_len_bytes != info->crypto->key_len) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "Expected a %u-bit key, got %u-bit key\n",
+ info->crypto->key_len * 8, key_len_bytes * 8);
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
[..]
Regards,
Simon
