linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.18 259/339] Revert "net: af_key: add check for pfkey_broadcast in function pfkey

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20220613094934.508223261@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:11:24 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.18 259/339] Revert "net: af_key: add check for pfkey_broadcast in function pfkey_process"

From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>

[ Upstream commit 9c90c9b3e50e16d03c7f87d63e9db373974781e0 ]

This reverts commit 4dc2a5a8f6754492180741facf2a8787f2c415d7.

A non-zero return value from pfkey_broadcast() does not necessarily mean
an error occurred as this function returns -ESRCH when no registered
listener received the message. In particular, a call with
BROADCAST_PROMISC_ONLY flag and null one_sk argument can never return
zero so that this commit in fact prevents processing any PF_KEY message.
One visible effect is that racoon daemon fails to find encryption
algorithms like aes and refuses to start.

Excluding -ESRCH return value would fix this but it's not obvious that
we really want to bail out here and most other callers of
pfkey_broadcast() also ignore the return value. Also, as pointed out by
Steffen Klassert, PF_KEY is kind of deprecated and newer userspace code
should use netlink instead so that we should only disturb the code for
really important fixes.

v2: add a comment explaining why is the return value ignored

Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 net/key/af_key.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/key/af_key.c b/net/key/af_key.c
index 339d95df19d3..d93bde657359 100644
--- a/net/key/af_key.c
+++ b/net/key/af_key.c
@@ -2826,10 +2826,12 @@ static int pfkey_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, const struct sadb
 	void *ext_hdrs[SADB_EXT_MAX];
 	int err;

-	err = pfkey_broadcast(skb_clone(skb, GFP_KERNEL), GFP_KERNEL,
-			      BROADCAST_PROMISC_ONLY, NULL, sock_net(sk));
-	if (err)
-		return err;
+	/* Non-zero return value of pfkey_broadcast() does not always signal
+	 * an error and even on an actual error we may still want to process
+	 * the message so rather ignore the return value.
+	 */
+	pfkey_broadcast(skb_clone(skb, GFP_KERNEL), GFP_KERNEL,
+			BROADCAST_PROMISC_ONLY, NULL, sock_net(sk));

 	memset(ext_hdrs, 0, sizeof(ext_hdrs));
 	err = parse_exthdrs(skb, hdr, ext_hdrs);
-- 
2.35.1