[PATCH] elf: Add AES-128 implementation for arc4random

[Florian Weimer]

On 03/02/2018 08:27 PM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/03/2018 09:53, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This commit imports the AES-128 implementation from libgcrypt.
>>
>> This code has to reside in ld.so because it will be used to
>> initialize the stack protector cookie and the pointer guard
>> from the AT_RANDOM variable.
>>
>> AES-128 was chosen as the cryptographic primitive because hardware
>> support for AES-128 is much more widespread than for SHA-1 or SHA-256.
>> This means that we can add hardware acceleration for arc4random for
>> a larger number of systems, as a subsequent optimization.
> 
> I noted other system (*BSD, Linux kernel, etc.) are using ChaCha20 instead
> of AES-128 for both arc4random and /dev/{u}random, but I don't have much

FreeBSD still uses RC4 for arc4random for some reason.

> information why exactly ChaCha20 was picked instead.  Checking some
> discussion why ChaCha20 is preferable [1] it seems is usually faster on
> hardware without specialized instructions and less susceptible to cache
> timing attacks. However, cryptoanalysis is not really forte, so I just
> curious why we should do something different than others for arc4random.
> 
> [1] https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/34455/whats-the-appeal-of-using-chacha20-instead-of-aes

The advantage of ChaCha20 is that the key schedule is very cheap.  This 
means that you can feed back the output from the generator and use it 
for the next block (this is called “backtracking resistance”).  It's not 
really advisable to do this with a software implementation of AES-128 
for performance reasons.

The downside is that this   Xₙ := fⁿ(X₀) construction risks into running 
a small(ish) cycle after many blocks.  Therefore, the implementation in 
libbsd feeds back not just the 256 key bits, but also 64 bits for the 
initial vector, probably hoping that the 320 bits make it sufficiently 
unlikely that the initial run until the first repeated block is shorter 
than 2**64 iterations or so.

If you encrypt a counter using AES-128, you do not have this problem 
because the encrypted blocks are all distinct, but this means there is a 
generic discriminator because expected block repeats after 2**64 or so 
blocks (due to the birthday paradox) simply do not happen.

Another advantage of encrypted counter approach is that you have very 
little per-thread state.  Basically just the counter and a key stream 
discriminator (see pthread_thread_number_np), although for some 
coprocessor implementations, it may be beneficial to create more than a 
single block per iteration.

The backtracking protection in libbsd still looks somewhat expensive, so 
libbsd generates 1024 output bytes for each feedback step.  40 bytes are 
fed back, the rest is returned to the application piece by piece.  This 
buffer really has to be thread-local if we want an implementation which 
scales, and using 1024 bytes for this seems to be a bit over top.  We 
could probably do with fewer bytes than that (40 + X), but it will 
substantially reduce generator throughput.

Performance-wise, on current Intel CPUs with AES support, the AES-128 
encrypted counter approach will provide a throughput of around 3 
gigabyte per second, with 80 bytes of per-thread state.  I expect that 
the ChaCha20 approach in libbsd will reach this level of performance 
only with a per-thread large buffer, such as the 1064 bytes used in 
libbsd, which should give around 2.75 gigabyte per second.  With 396 
bytes of per-thread state, the predicted performance is 1.1 gigabyte per 
second, and with 104 bytes, it is 0.24 gigabyte per second.

The nominal security strength of ChaCha20 is higher than that of AES-128 
(256 bits vs less than 128 bits), but this is for the cipher itself, not 
for the generators derived from it.  I'm not aware of any reviews of the 
actual generators.

So if we want backtracking protection, we'd probably have to go with the 
396-byte ChaCha20 approach (maybe after recovering the TLS space 
occupied by _res).  Otherwise, AES-128 will be the better choice for a 
lot of users (who have access to hardware with AES-128 acceleration).

Unfortunately, maintaining both approaches has quite a bit of overhead 
because they are so different.

Thanks,
Florian