netdev - Re: [PATCH]: double SAs are created when using AH and ESP together

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:55:36 -0600
From:	Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eparis@...hat.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, jmorris@...ei.org, paul.moore@...com,
	vyekkirala@...stedCS.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: double SAs are created when using AH and ESP together

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:20 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:14:54 -0600
> 
> > I noticed that in xfrm_state_add we look for the larval SA in a few
> > places without checking for protocol match. So when using both 
> > AH and ESP, whichever one gets added first, deletes the larval SA. 
> > It seems AH always gets added first and ESP is always the larval 
> > SA's protocol since the xfrm->tmpl has it first. Thus causing the
> > additional km_query()
> > 
> > Adding the check eliminates the double SA creation. 
> > I know this may not seem like a complete solution and I will 
> > continue to test and be on the lookout, but isn't having the
> > check a good thing? So far I have tested SAs with just ESP, just AH
> > and with both and all seems ok. 
> > 
> > Please let me know if this patch is ok. 
> > My kernel was 2.6.20-rc3-git3.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Joy Latten <latten@...tin.ibm.com>
> 
> Generally it looks OK, but I'm going to let this one sit for
> a while before I apply it so that other folks can review it
> too and spot any unintended consequences.
> 
> In particular, I find it strance that we didn't check the
> protocol field all this time and I wonder whether that might
> be on purpose for some reason.

Ok. And I'll continue to test, though most of my testing is
done on lspp kernel. 

lspp kernel is an earlier version of upstream kernel and
I noticed the old __xfrm4_find_acq() did include a check for the
protocol, new __find_acq_core() doesn't.
But neither checked for protocol after call to __xfrm_find_acq_byseq(). 

Joy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html