Closed ni4 closed 4 months ago
I confirm!
This is true for the decryption of some AEAD modes. On the C++ level, some report a minimum_final_size()
(of the tag length) and an update granularity of 1; notably ChaChaPoly, EAX, SIV and CCM. As a result, ffi_choose_update_size()
produces 17.
Also surprising: for GCM it reports 32 (due to both update granularity and minimum final size reporting 16 and ffi_choose_update_size()
rounding up "17" to the next multiple of "update granularity").
Note that botan_cipher_get_ideal_update_granularity()
(introduced in Botan 3.0) always reports reasonable values. However, documentation claims that "ideal granularity" is always a multiple of "update granularity", which obviously isn't the case for the configurations affected by this issue.
We should have caught that in #3951 already, but the tests that sanity-check the granularities aren't up to the job. Thanks a lot for scrutinizing this even before it gets released!
@randombit I feel the safest fix for this is to let botan_cipher_get_update_granularity()
pass-through whatever is returned by Cipher_Mode::update_granularity()
(see https://github.com/randombit/botan/pull/4094). This would remove the bug-prone logic in ffi_choose_update_size()
. Functionally, it should be just fine after the changes in #3951 -- most notably the BOTAN_FFI_ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER_SPACE
handling added there.
Nevertheless, one could make a case about semver: Users that rely on the old behavior with the sufficiently sized update granularity, might trip over this. When updating to 3.5.0, they would either need to switch to botan_cipher_get_IDEAL_update_granularity()
or handle BOTAN_FFI_ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER_SPACE
properly.
As an alternative to #4094, we could extend the logic in ffi_choose_update_size()
to scale the minimal update granularity to ensure ideal granularity is a multiple of it. My gut tells me, that this will just make it more error-prone, though: e.g. when Cipher_Mode
's update granularity is equal to its ideal granularity.
....which is quite unlogical if application relies on this value. Root of this is in the
ffi_choose_update_size()
function and the fact thatmode.update_granularity()
returns 1.