[PATCH 09/11] nvmet: Implement basic In-Band Authentication

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 7/19/21 12:19 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 19.07.2021 um 11:57 +0200 schrieb Hannes Reinecke:
>> On 7/19/21 10:51 AM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>>> Am Montag, dem 19.07.2021 um 10:15 +0200 schrieb Hannes Reinecke:
>>>> On 7/18/21 2:56 PM, Stephan Müller wrote:
>>>>> Am Sonntag, 18. Juli 2021, 14:37:34 CEST schrieb Hannes Reinecke:
>>>
>>>>>> The key is also used when using the ffdhe algorithm.
>>>>>> Note: I _think_ that I need to use this key for the ffdhe algorithm,
>>>>>> because the implementation I came up with is essentially plain DH
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> pre-defined 'p', 'q' and 'g' values. But the DH implementation also
>>>>>> requires a 'key', and for that I'm using this key here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be that I'm completely off, and don't need to use a key for
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> DH implementation. In that case you are correct.
>>>>>> (And that's why I said I'll need a review of the FFDHE
>>>>>> implementation).
>>>>>> But for now I'll need the key for FFDHE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do I understand you correctly that the dhchap_key is used as the input
>>>>> to
>>>>> the 
>>>>> DH - i.e. it is the remote public key then? It looks strange that this
>>>>> is
>>>>> used 
>>>>> for DH but then it is changed here by hashing it together with
>>>>> something
>>>>> else 
>>>>> to form a new dhchap_key. Maybe that is what the protocol says. But it
>>>>> sounds 
>>>>> strange to me, especially when you think that dhchap_key would be,
>>>>> say,
>>>>> 2048 
>>>>> bits if it is truly the remote public key and then after the hashing
>>>>> it is
>>>>> 256 
>>>>> this dhchap_key cannot be used for FFC-DH.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you using the dhchap_key for two different purposes?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems I miss something here.
>>>>>
>>>> No, not entirely. It's me who buggered it up.
>>>> I got carried away by the fact that there is a crypto_dh_encode_key()
>>>> function, and thought I need to use it here.
>>>
>>> Thank you for clarifying that. It sounds to me that there is no defined
>>> protocol (or if there, I would be wondering how the code would have worked
>>> with a different implementation). Would it make sense to first specify a
>>> protocol for authentication and have it discussed? I personally think it
>>> is a
>>> bit difficult to fully understand the protocol from the code and discuss
>>> protocol-level items based on the code.
>>>
>> Oh, the protocol _is_ specified:
>>
>> https://nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM-Express-Base-Specification-2_0-2021.06.02-Ratified-5.pdf
>>
>> It's just that I have issues translating that spec onto what the kernel
>> provides.
> 
> according to the naming conventions there in figures 447 and following:
> 
> - x and y: DH private key (kernel calls it secret set with dh_set_secret or
> encoded into param.key)
> 

But that's were I got confused; one needs a private key here, but there
is no obvious candidate for it. But reading it more closely I guess the
private key is just a random number (cf the spec: g^y mod p, where y is
a random number selected by the host that shall be at least 256 bits
long). So I'll fix it up with the next round.

> - g^x mod p  / g^y mod p: DH public keys from either end that is communicated
> over the wire (corresponding to the the DH private keys of x and y) - to set
> it, you initialize a dh request and set the public key to it with
> kpp_request_set_input. After performing the crypto_kpp_compute_shared_secret
> you receive the shared secret
> 
> - g^xy mod p: DH shared secret - this is the one that is to be used for the
> subsequent hashing /HMAC operations as this is the one that is identical on
> both, the host and the controller.
> 
Thanks. Will be checking the code if I do it correctly.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare at suse.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer