From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id GJqeBH1r/V5EZwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 05:07:09 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id EN6dAH1r/V49fAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 05:07:09 +0000 Received: from mail.notmuchmail.org (nmbug.tethera.net [IPv6:2607:5300:201:3100::1657]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B5C89409E6 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 05:07:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [144.217.243.247] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6174E2AAC9; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 01:06:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (unknown [162.247.75.117]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 065E52AAB0 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 01:06:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1593666414; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=3nHkuNVM6lsTyaPdh4XQmWeESFVUnfmUFOfdyqATQZA=; b=uEypWA6yijcRz0uBHQH8ajIOG/wPPc+4uucAgSmlCoAax/af4mlBRLW4MBObEJxpwME8Y geEQluQhKd10nRHBA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1593666414; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=3nHkuNVM6lsTyaPdh4XQmWeESFVUnfmUFOfdyqATQZA=; b=SGLDE16SgwTCrTbePjQyKC+zc+bhgZOTCQ7aH3Wu7o97siv2m/w3G4GRKmvqkdU4IZfkj 2O5UeMcItNSdh39AhuxpHVl1q8vkHV85jz3ZoMUmhh5UpOiok9w0r2Ry6lfwlfEno4mboSH fuy1wLXqmSzazoWnSJxcQJFjKtoo9u5W4iRwvvjCCWSvEhtvi/uTMj2ypcYIz7Xwbj2SZJR 6ppNUEIuZ1/U0+a52D+HrYWmDaV1HkAdnAcsF25b2V0Swzsfrz7/dVULRCfPZbsdINapVG3 tPBrVvQEI0U1+3aHS/opjLJ5mn4eTWlKIN8AKlkIsU9h/6evOc+0JlXfh6MA== Received: from fifthhorseman.net (tachanka.org [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02FFAF9A5; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 01:06:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 11BD920297; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 01:06:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: David Bremner , Tomi Ollila , Dan =?utf-8?B?xIxlcm3DoWs=?= , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: crypto test failures on Fedora and OpenSUSE In-Reply-To: <87ftafo25l.fsf@zancas> References: <87sgfp3s92.fsf@tethera.net> <87blm2xoxt.fsf@tethera.net> <87wo47usg0.fsf@tethera.net> <87ftaum4ob.fsf@cgc-instruments.com> <87wo45tfg6.fsf@tethera.net> <87v9jlspv6.fsf@tethera.net> <87ftafo25l.fsf@zancas> Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ== Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 01:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <87366av72u.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID-Hash: SY7FNXNEPUNSAX44QZI4K2COYCKSGKMT X-Message-ID-Hash: SY7FNXNEPUNSAX44QZI4K2COYCKSGKMT X-MailFrom: dkg@fifthhorseman.net X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-notmuch.notmuchmail.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.2.1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0098258387957930416==" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.s=2019 header.b=uEypWA6y; dkim=fail (body hash did not verify) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.s=2019rsa header.b=SGLDE16S; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF" header.from=fifthhorseman.net (policy=none); spf=fail (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org does not designate 2607:5300:201:3100::1657 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Spam-Score: -0.77 X-TUID: pokCqNfCTO2a --===============0098258387957930416== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --==-=-= Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks-- On Sun 2020-06-28 08:33:42 -0300, David Bremner wrote: > I dug a bit further down, and this is what is returned from gpgme > (line 345 in g_mime_gpgme_get_signatures) > > sig =3D {next =3D 0x0, > summary =3D GPGME_SIGSUM_KEY_MISSING,=20 > fpr =3D 0x4ac480 "5AEAB11F5E33DCE875DDB75B6D92612D94E46381", status = =3D 9,=20 > notations =3D 0x0, timestamp =3D 1559167762, exp_timestamp =3D 0, wro= ng_key_usage =3D 0,=20 > pka_trust =3D 0, chain_model =3D 0, is_de_vs =3D 0, _unused =3D 0,=20 > validity =3D GPGME_VALIDITY_UNKNOWN, validity_reason =3D 0,=20 > pubkey_algo =3D GPGME_PK_RSA, hash_algo =3D GPGME_MD_SHA256, pka_addr= ess =3D 0x0,=20 > key =3D 0x0} > > At this point I'm leaning towards declaring it a gpgme problem in > fedora32, and suggesting that relevant distros mark the test broken. I > am of course open to more informed opinions. The problem does indeed appear to be with gpgme, in versions 1.13.0 and 1.13.1. In particular, it is a problem with the resolution of https://dev.gnupg.org/T3464, which is ultimately fixed upstream, but is not yet fixed in a released version of gpgme. The upstream commit, which should be patched into gpgme on Fedora and OpenSUSE (and anywhere else that depends on gpgme) is: https://dev.gnupg.org/rMae4d7761a15b82eb98b0bcc72af2ae2e8973e1f9 (patch attached here as well) We don't see this on Debian because gpgme in debian has carried this patch for over a year now. In gpgme 1.12.0 and earlier, this bug did not exist. But gpgme 1.13.0 introduced the bug in an attempt to avoid error diagnostics when *not* trying to verify a signature while using a session key. The fix in 1.13.0 inadvertently introduced an error when the caller does actually try to verify a signature, which is what we see here. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: text/x-diff Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0001-gpg-Avoid-error-diagnostics-with-override-session-ke.patch Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From=20ae4d7761a15b82eb98b0bcc72af2ae2e8973e1f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 17:56:01 -0400 Subject: [GPGME PATCH] gpg: Avoid error diagnostics with --override-session-key when verifying * src/engine-gpg.c (gpg_decrypt): only send --no-keyring when we are not verifying. =2D- Without this change, the signature verification would fail. This problem was introduced in bded8ebc59c7fdad2617f4c9232a58047656834c in an attempt to avoid an error when *not* verifying. Clearly more test suite coverage is needed to avoid introducing this sort of problem in the future. GnuPG-bug-id: 3464 Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor =2D-- src/engine-gpg.c | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/engine-gpg.c b/src/engine-gpg.c index 5c335cb2..223404ed 100644 =2D-- a/src/engine-gpg.c +++ b/src/engine-gpg.c @@ -1717,12 +1717,15 @@ gpg_decrypt (void *engine, strlen (override_session_key), 1); if (!err) { =2D /* We add --no-keyring because a keyring is not required =2D * when we are overriding the session key. It would + /* When we are not trying to verify signatures as well, + * we add --no-keyring because a keyring is not required + * for decryption when overriding the session key. It would * work without that option but --no-keyring avoids that * gpg return a failure due to a missing key log_error() * diagnostic. --no-keyring is supported since 2.1.14. */ =2D err =3D add_arg (gpg, "--no-keyring"); + + if (!(flags & GPGME_DECRYPT_VERIFY)) + err =3D add_arg (gpg, "--no-keyring"); if (!err) err =3D add_arg (gpg, "--override-session-key-fd"); if (!err) =2D-=20 2.27.0 --=-=-=-- --==-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXv1raQAKCRDEDyVUMvKB D62XAQDdyJAmjlIfvKKuFVxDVP9T2pySdT4sX3SgSa6ldW6gkQEAtn15YjFf6Vi9 7S5/YFDH2hAy2/y9tuYYBLIIx2PC6g0= =se8A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==-=-=-- --===============0098258387957930416== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list -- notmuch@notmuchmail.org To unsubscribe send an email to notmuch-leave@notmuchmail.org --===============0098258387957930416==--