linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 009/159] xfrm: dont call xfrm_policy_cache

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: <20180223170744.323363188@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:25:17 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+e149f7d1328c26f9c12f@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 009/159] xfrm: dont call xfrm_policy_cache_flush while holding spinlock

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

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

From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>

commit b1bdcb59b64f806ef08d25a85c39ffb3ad841ce6 upstream.

xfrm_policy_cache_flush can sleep, so it cannot be called while holding
a spinlock.  We could release the lock first, but I don't see why we need
to invoke this function here in first place, the packet path won't reuse
an xdst entry unless its still valid.

While at it, add an annotation to xfrm_policy_cache_flush, it would
have probably caught this bug sooner.

Fixes: ec30d78c14a813 ("xfrm: add xdst pcpu cache")
Reported-by: syzbot+e149f7d1328c26f9c12f@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -975,8 +975,6 @@ int xfrm_policy_flush(struct net *net, u
 	}
 	if (!cnt)
 		err = -ESRCH;
-	else
-		xfrm_policy_cache_flush();
 out:
 	spin_unlock_bh(&net->xfrm.xfrm_policy_lock);
 	return err;
@@ -1738,6 +1736,8 @@ void xfrm_policy_cache_flush(void)
 	bool found = 0;
 	int cpu;
 
+	might_sleep();
+
 	local_bh_disable();
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {