Use the same encryption growth macro consistently#19622
Closed
mattcaswell wants to merge 1 commit intoopenssl:masterfrom
Closed
Use the same encryption growth macro consistently#19622mattcaswell wants to merge 1 commit intoopenssl:masterfrom
mattcaswell wants to merge 1 commit intoopenssl:masterfrom
Conversation
We had two different macros for calculating the potential growth due to encryption. The macro we use for allocating the underlying buffer should be the same one that we use for reserving bytes for encryption growth. Also if we are adding the MAC independently of the cipher algorithm then the encryption growth will not include that MAC so we should remove it from the amount of bytes that we reserve for that growth. Otherwise we might exceed our buffer size and the WPACKET_reserve operation will fail.
mattcaswell
added
branch: master
t8m
approved these changes
Nov 7, 2022
Member
|
OK with urgent |
2 tasks
Member
Author
|
3.1/3.0 backport in #19624 |
Member
Author
|
Ping @openssl/committers. This is causing CI failures in PRs... |
2 tasks
hlandau
added
approval: done
mattcaswell
added
approval: ready to merge
Member
Author
|
Pushed. Thanks. |
openssl-machine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2022
We had two different macros for calculating the potential growth due to encryption. The macro we use for allocating the underlying buffer should be the same one that we use for reserving bytes for encryption growth. Also if we are adding the MAC independently of the cipher algorithm then the encryption growth will not include that MAC so we should remove it from the amount of bytes that we reserve for that growth. Otherwise we might exceed our buffer size and the WPACKET_reserve operation will fail. Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <[email protected]> (Merged from #19622)
beldmit
pushed a commit
to beldmit/openssl
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 26, 2022
We had two different macros for calculating the potential growth due to encryption. The macro we use for allocating the underlying buffer should be the same one that we use for reserving bytes for encryption growth. Also if we are adding the MAC independently of the cipher algorithm then the encryption growth will not include that MAC so we should remove it from the amount of bytes that we reserve for that growth. Otherwise we might exceed our buffer size and the WPACKET_reserve operation will fail. Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <[email protected]> (Merged from openssl#19622)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We had two different macros for calculating the potential growth due to encryption. The macro we use for allocating the underlying buffer should be the same one that we use for reserving bytes for encryption growth.
Also if we are adding the MAC independently of the cipher algorithm then the encryption growth will not include that MAC so we should remove it from the amount of bytes that we reserve for that growth. Otherwise we might exceed our buffer size and the WPACKET_reserve operation will fail.
This is urgent because it was included as part of #19516 which I over-enthusiastically merged when unfortunately there was a CI failure (unfortunately ready-to-merge was automatically applied anyway). There will need to be a backport because #19517 was previously merged to 3.0/3.1.