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

Further Kyber division fixes #1645

Closed
dstebila opened this issue Dec 30, 2023 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1649
Closed

Further Kyber division fixes #1645

dstebila opened this issue Dec 30, 2023 · 6 comments · Fixed by #1649
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@dstebila
Copy link
Member

A few more potentially non-constant-time divisions have been identified in Kyber:
pq-crystals/kyber@272125f

@dstebila
Copy link
Member Author

dstebila commented Jan 2, 2024

In order to resolve this, I think we'd need to do the following two things:

  • copy from upstream with the above PQ-Crystals commit to update the reference and AVX2 implementations
  • add a patch à la 6982f4c to update the aarch64 implementation

Does that seem right, @SWilson4 and @praveksharma ?

@dstebila
Copy link
Member Author

dstebila commented Jan 2, 2024

@baentsch What additional commit needs to be cherry-picked over to the dev-092 branch?

@dstebila dstebila added this to the 0.9.2 milestone Jan 2, 2024
@baentsch
Copy link
Member

baentsch commented Jan 2, 2024

@baentsch What additional commit needs to be cherry-picked over to the dev-092 branch?

See #1647 (comment). Looks like my thinking was wrong, not a commit missing. Go ahead with 0.9.2 and we'll decide separately whether or not it warrants an oqsprovider release (right now I tend to think it doesn't: The question basically is whether we provide oqsprovider executables containing 0.9.2 (via CI&release) or whether we let people build them themselves (i.e., not do an oqsprovider release for this).

@dstebila
Copy link
Member Author

dstebila commented Jan 2, 2024

@baentsch What additional commit needs to be cherry-picked over to the dev-092 branch?

See #1647 (comment). Looks like my thinking was wrong, not a commit missing. Go ahead with 0.9.2

Thanks Michael. Okay, no cherry-picking the HQC commit over to 0.9.2.

and we'll decide separately whether or not it warrants an oqsprovider release (right now I tend to think it doesn't: The question basically is whether we provide oqsprovider executables containing 0.9.2 (via CI&release) or whether we let people build them themselves (i.e., not do an oqsprovider release for this).

Are we providing executables based on 0.9.0? Because this is a security release, I would want to discourage people from using 0.9.0, so would replace anything we're providing based on 0.9.0.

@SWilson4
Copy link
Member

SWilson4 commented Jan 2, 2024

In order to resolve this, I think we'd need to do the following two things:

* copy from upstream with the above PQ-Crystals commit to update the reference and AVX2 implementations

* add a patch à la [6982f4c](https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/commit/6982f4c28fb4cc76ad3cf033364f9f2a6cd2d6ab) to update the aarch64 implementation

Does that seem right, @SWilson4 and @praveksharma ?

Seems right to me. What would you like me (and/or @praveksharma) to take on? I'm happy to help with any stage of the release process but don't want to duplicate anything you might already have in the pipeline.

@dstebila
Copy link
Member Author

dstebila commented Jan 2, 2024

Seems right to me. What would you like me (and/or @praveksharma) to take on? I'm happy to help with any stage of the release process but don't want to duplicate anything you might already have in the pipeline.

I haven't started on any of these, so if you want to do either/both, please go ahead.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants