linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130211130447.GE17794@secunet.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:04:47 +0100
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@...lavors.com>
Cc:	jamal <j.hadi123@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	Emmanuel THIERRY <emmanuel.thierry@...ecom-bretagne.eu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix handling of XFRM policies mark and mask.

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:57:59PM +0100, Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> Hi Steffen,
> 
> Do you plan to resubmit a patch to the mailing list or shall we take care of that?
> 

I'm testing with the patch below. If it shows no regression,
I'll apply it to the ipsec-next tree.

Subject: [PATCH] xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and
 different priorities

We currently can not insert policies with mark and mask
such that some flows would be matched from both policies.
We make this possible when the priority of these policies
are different. If both policies match a flow, the one with
the higher priority is used.

Reported-by: Emmanuel Thierry <emmanuel.thierry@...ecom-bretagne.eu>
Reported-by: Romain Kuntz <r.kuntz@...lavors.com>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c |   18 ++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index 456b11b..257dfb1 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -607,6 +607,21 @@ static void xfrm_policy_requeue(struct xfrm_policy *old,
 	spin_unlock_bh(&pq->hold_queue.lock);
 }
 
+static bool xfrm_policy_mark_match(struct xfrm_policy *policy,
+				   struct xfrm_policy *pol)
+{
+	u32 mark = policy->mark.v & policy->mark.m;
+
+	if (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v && policy->mark.m == pol->mark.m)
+		return true;
+
+	if ((mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v &&
+	    policy->priority == pol->priority)
+		return true;
+
+	return false;
+}
+
 int xfrm_policy_insert(int dir, struct xfrm_policy *policy, int excl)
 {
 	struct net *net = xp_net(policy);
@@ -614,7 +629,6 @@ int xfrm_policy_insert(int dir, struct xfrm_policy *policy, int excl)
 	struct xfrm_policy *delpol;
 	struct hlist_head *chain;
 	struct hlist_node *entry, *newpos;
-	u32 mark = policy->mark.v & policy->mark.m;
 
 	write_lock_bh(&xfrm_policy_lock);
 	chain = policy_hash_bysel(net, &policy->selector, policy->family, dir);
@@ -623,7 +637,7 @@ int xfrm_policy_insert(int dir, struct xfrm_policy *policy, int excl)
 	hlist_for_each_entry(pol, entry, chain, bydst) {
 		if (pol->type == policy->type &&
 		    !selector_cmp(&pol->selector, &policy->selector) &&
-		    (mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v &&
+		    xfrm_policy_mark_match(policy, pol) &&
 		    xfrm_sec_ctx_match(pol->security, policy->security) &&
 		    !WARN_ON(delpol)) {
 			if (excl) {
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/