Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Valgrind ctime test travis #12

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

jonasnick
Copy link
Owner

No description provided.

There were several places where the code was non-constant time
 for invalid secret inputs.  These are harmless under sane use
 but get in the way of automatic const-time validation.

(Nonce overflow in signing is not addressed, nor is s==0 in
 signing)
ECDSA signing has a retry loop for the exceptionally unlikely case
 that S==0.  S is not a secret at this point and this case is so
 rare that it will never be observed but branching on it will trip
 up tools analysing if the code is constant time with respect to
 secrets.

Derandomized ECDSA can also loop on k being zero or overflowing,
 and while k is a secret these cases are too rare (1:2^255) to
 ever observe and are also of no concern.

This adds a function for marking memory as no-longer-secret and
 sets it up for use with the valgrind memcheck constant-time
 test.
Valgrind does bit-level tracking of the "uninitialized" status of memory,
 property tracks memory which is tainted by any uninitialized memory, and
 warns if any branch or array access depends on an uninitialized bit.

That is exactly the verification we need on secret data to test for
 constant-time behaviour. All we need to do is tell valgrind our
 secret key is actually uninitialized memory.

This adds a valgrind_ctime_test which is compiled if valgrind is installed:

Run it with libtool --mode=execute:
$ libtool --mode=execute valgrind ./valgrind_ctime_test
@jonasnick jonasnick force-pushed the valgrind_ctime_test_travis branch 11 times, most recently from a25d305 to e0eefa7 Compare February 13, 2020 15:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants