linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.5 10/96] selinux: process labeled IPsec TCP SYN-ACK packets properly in selinux_ip

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]

Message-Id: <1389623099-18783-11-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:23:33 +0000
From:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.5 10/96] selinux: process labeled IPsec TCP SYN-ACK packets properly in selinux_ip_postroute()

3.5.7.29 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>

commit c0828e50485932b7e019df377a6b0a8d1ebd3080 upstream.

Due to difficulty in arriving at the proper security label for
TCP SYN-ACK packets in selinux_ip_postroute(), we need to check packets
while/before they are undergoing XFRM transforms instead of waiting
until afterwards so that we can determine the correct security label.

Reported-by: Janak Desai <Janak.Desai@...i.gatech.edu>
[ Paul: backported to 3.4 kernel ]
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
 security/selinux/hooks.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
index a9ee3d1..0d3bef7 100644
--- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
+++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
@@ -4722,22 +4722,32 @@ static unsigned int selinux_ip_postroute(struct sk_buff *skb, int ifindex,
 	 * as fast and as clean as possible. */
 	if (!selinux_policycap_netpeer)
 		return selinux_ip_postroute_compat(skb, ifindex, family);
+
+	secmark_active = selinux_secmark_enabled();
+	peerlbl_active = netlbl_enabled() || selinux_xfrm_enabled();
+	if (!secmark_active && !peerlbl_active)
+		return NF_ACCEPT;
+
+	sk = skb->sk;
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM
 	/* If skb->dst->xfrm is non-NULL then the packet is undergoing an IPsec
 	 * packet transformation so allow the packet to pass without any checks
 	 * since we'll have another chance to perform access control checks
 	 * when the packet is on it's final way out.
 	 * NOTE: there appear to be some IPv6 multicast cases where skb->dst
-	 *       is NULL, in this case go ahead and apply access control. */
-	if (skb_dst(skb) != NULL && skb_dst(skb)->xfrm != NULL)
+	 *       is NULL, in this case go ahead and apply access control.
+	 *       is NULL, in this case go ahead and apply access control.
+	 * NOTE: if this is a local socket (skb->sk != NULL) that is in the
+	 *       TCP listening state we cannot wait until the XFRM processing
+	 *       is done as we will miss out on the SA label if we do;
+	 *       unfortunately, this means more work, but it is only once per
+	 *       connection. */
+	if (skb_dst(skb) != NULL && skb_dst(skb)->xfrm != NULL &&
+	    !(sk != NULL && sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN))
 		return NF_ACCEPT;
 #endif
-	secmark_active = selinux_secmark_enabled();
-	peerlbl_active = netlbl_enabled() || selinux_xfrm_enabled();
-	if (!secmark_active && !peerlbl_active)
-		return NF_ACCEPT;
 
-	sk = skb->sk;
 	if (sk == NULL) {
 		/* Without an associated socket the packet is either coming
 		 * from the kernel or it is being forwarded; check the packet
@@ -4765,6 +4775,25 @@ static unsigned int selinux_ip_postroute(struct sk_buff *skb, int ifindex,
 		struct sk_security_struct *sksec = sk->sk_security;
 		if (selinux_skb_peerlbl_sid(skb, family, &skb_sid))
 			return NF_DROP;
+		/* At this point, if the returned skb peerlbl is SECSID_NULL
+		 * and the packet has been through at least one XFRM
+		 * transformation then we must be dealing with the "final"
+		 * form of labeled IPsec packet; since we've already applied
+		 * all of our access controls on this packet we can safely
+		 * pass the packet. */
+		if (skb_sid == SECSID_NULL) {
+			switch (family) {
+			case PF_INET:
+				if (IPCB(skb)->flags & IPSKB_XFRM_TRANSFORMED)
+					return NF_ACCEPT;
+				break;
+			case PF_INET6:
+				if (IP6CB(skb)->flags & IP6SKB_XFRM_TRANSFORMED)
+					return NF_ACCEPT;
+			default:
+				return NF_DROP_ERR(-ECONNREFUSED);
+			}
+		}
 		if (selinux_conn_sid(sksec->sid, skb_sid, &peer_sid))
 			return NF_DROP;
 		secmark_perm = PACKET__SEND;
-- 
1.8.3.2

--
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/