Re: CFR: AES-GCM and OpenCrypto work review

Vsevolod Stakhov wrote this message on Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 18:55 +0000:
> On 08/11/14 04:23, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Over the last few months, I've been working on a project to add support
> > for AES-GCM and AES-CTR modes to our OpenCrypto framework.  The work is
> > sponsored by The FreeBSD Foundation and Netgate.
> > 
> > I plan on committing these patches early next week.  If you need more
> > time for review, please email me privately and I will make delay.
> > 
> > The code has already been reviewed by Watson Ladd (the software crypto
> > implementations) and Trevor Perrin (the aesni module part) and I have
> > integrated these changes into the patch.
> > 
> > There are two patches, one is the changes for OpenCrypto and the test
> > framework.  The other is the data files used by the test framework.
> > The data is from NIST's CAVP program, and is about 20MB worth of test
> > vectors.  (I just realized, should we look at compressing these on
> > disk?)
> > 
> > Main patch (192KB):
> > https://www.funkthat.com/~jmg/patches/aes.ipsec.5.patch
> > 
> > Data files (~20MB):
> > https://www.funkthat.com/~jmg/patches/aes.ipsec.5.testing.patch
> > 
> > A list of notable changes in the patch:
> > - Replacing crypto(4) w/ NetBSD's version + updates
> > - Lots of man page updates, including CIOCFINDDEV and crypto(7) which
> >   adds specifics about restrictions on the modes.
> > - Allow sane useage of both _HARDWARE and _SOFTWARE flags.
> > - Add a timing safe bcmp for MAC comparision.
> > - Add a software implementation of GCM that uses a four bit lookup
> >   table with parallelization.  This algorithm is possibly vulnerable to
> >   timing attacks, but best known mitigation methods are used.  Using
> >   a timing safe version is many times slower.
> > - Added a CRYPTDEB macro that defaults to off.
> > - Bring in some of OpenBSD's improvements to the OpenCrypto framework.
> > - If an mbuf passed to the aesni module is only one segment, don't do
> >   a copy.  This needs to be improved to support segmented buffers.
> > - Remove the CRYPTO_F_REL flag.  It was meaningless.  It was used but
> >   did not change any behavior.
> > - Add function crypto_mbuftoiov to convert an mbuf to an iov.  This
> >   also converts the software crypto to only use iov's even for a simple
> >   linear buffer, and so simplifies the processing.
> > - Add a dtrace probe for errors from the ioctl.
> > - Add the CIOCCRYPTAEAD ioctl that allows userland processing (testing)
> >   of AES-GCM and future AEAD modes.
> > 
> > Future improvements:
> > - Support IV's longer than 12 bytes for GCM.
> > - Make AES-NI support segmented buffers (iov or mbuf) so multisegmented
> >   inputs don't have to be copied.
> 
> I have the question regarding to the algorithm of GF field calculations
> used in the proposed implementation: why not use the recent researches
> in GCM calculations, e.g. described in [1], for further speed optimizations?
> 
> [1] - https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/157.pdf

The paper you linked to does not describe a new way of calculating
GHASH, but evalutation of a bug in their implementation using the
PCLMULQDQ instruction...

If you mean, why don't I use OpenSSL's code?  The reason is that their
code is a perl script that generates assmebly...  We don't have
perl in base.. and I didn't want more assembly in our tree (see below)..

Instead, I decided to use code from Intel's whitepaper:
Intel® Carry-Less Multiplication Instruction and its Usage for
Computing the GCM Mode

I didn't use their assembly version because I wanted to have
maintainable code, and also the same code can be used on both i386
and amd64 arches..  This turns out to also be a good thing, as when
I add segmented buffer support, it'll be much easier to add to the C
version, and I only have to do the work once for two arches...

Also, the software GF library that I wrote is using state of the art
algorithms...  An OpenBSD developer has tested my code and has seen
a significant performance improvement over their old code, and are
evaluating if they want to/can include it in their tree...

Hope this answers your question.  If not, please be more specific so
I can answer it.

Thanks.

-- 
  John-Mark Gurney				Voice: +1 415 225 5579

     "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."