You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Use bit operations for constant-flow padding check
The previous code used comparison operators >= and == that are quite likely to
be compiled to branches by some compilers on some architectures (with some
optimisation levels).
For example, take the following function:
void old_update( size_t data_len, size_t *padlen )
{
*padlen *= ( data_len >= *padlen + 1 );
}
With Clang 3.8, let's compile it for the Arm v6-M architecture:
% clang --target=arm-none-eabi -march=armv6-m -Os foo.c -S -o - |
sed -n '/^old_update:$/,/\.size/p'
old_update:
.fnstart
@ BB#0:
.save {r4, lr}
push {r4, lr}
ldr r2, [r1]
adds r4, r2, #1
movs r3, #0
cmp r4, r0
bls .LBB0_2
@ BB#1:
mov r2, r3
.LBB0_2:
str r2, [r1]
pop {r4, pc}
.Lfunc_end0:
.size old_update, .Lfunc_end0-old_update
We can see an unbalanced secret-dependant branch, resulting in a total
execution time depends on the value of the secret (here padlen) in a
straightforward way.
The new version, based on bit operations, doesn't have this issue:
new_update:
.fnstart
@ BB#0:
ldr r2, [r1]
subs r0, r0, #1
subs r0, r0, r2
asrs r0, r0, Mbed-TLS#31
bics r2, r0
str r2, [r1]
bx lr
.Lfunc_end1:
.size new_update, .Lfunc_end1-new_update
(As a bonus, it's smaller and uses less stack.)
While there's no formal guarantee that the version based on bit operations in
C won't be translated using branches by the compiler, experiments tend to show
that's the case [1], and it is commonly accepted knowledge in the practical
crypto community that if we want to sick to C, bit operations are the safest
bet [2].
[1] https://github.com/mpg/ct/blob/master/results
[2] https://github.com/veorq/cryptocoding
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <[email protected]>
0 commit comments