[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2821ac8-6903-372e-36a4-9667b9fceac2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 17:32:15 +0000
From: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
To: Anastasia Belova <abelova@...ralinux.ru>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: compat: change expression for switch in
xfrm_xlate64
On 1/10/23 09:14, Anastasia Belova wrote:
> Compare XFRM_MSG_NEWSPDINFO (value from netlink
> configuration messages enum) with nlh_src->nlmsg_type
> instead of nlh_src->nlmsg_type - XFRM_MSG_BASE.
>
> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
Nice find!
Looking at the details:
xfrm_xlate64() is for translating 64-bit kernel-issued message to 32-bit
userspace ABI. The message is XFRM_MSG_NEWSPDINFO and there's a selftest
that checks if the attributes (thresh valued) were correctly translated
in tools/testing/selftests/net/ipsec.c
So, I was interested in how did it go unnoticed?
The switch here is to differ XFRMA_* attributes from XFRMA_SPD_*
attributes, which can be just copied as they are as they occupy the same
space on 64-bit as well as on 32-bit.
enum xfrm_spdattr_type_t {
XFRMA_SPD_UNSPEC,
XFRMA_SPD_INFO,
XFRMA_SPD_HINFO,
XFRMA_SPD_IPV4_HTHRESH,
XFRMA_SPD_IPV6_HTHRESH,
__XFRMA_SPD_MAX
};
attributes went through xfrm_xlate64_attr() instead of just being
copied. That worked in result as
case XFRMA_UNSPEC:
case XFRMA_ALG_AUTH:
case XFRMA_ALG_CRYPT:
case XFRMA_ALG_COMP:
case XFRMA_ENCAP:
case XFRMA_TMPL:
return xfrm_nla_cpy(dst, src, nla_len(src));
are equal by value (XFRMA_UNSPEC == 0 == XFRMA_SPD_UNSPEC) and so on.
So, in result, even with this typo the code worked.
What about the reverse case, what was being copied by this
XFRM_MSG_NEWSPDINFO case?
XFRM_MSG_NEWSPDINFO == 0x24
So, before this patch (XFRM_MSG_NEWSPDINFO - XFRM_MSG_BASE) == 0x14 ==
XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY type of messages would fit this switch case.
Luckily enough, kernel doesn't send back XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY messages to
userspace. That's how it went unnoticed, by unexpectedly still working.
> Fixes: 4e9505064f58 ("net/xfrm/compat: Copy xfrm_spdattr_type_t atributes")
> Signed-off-by: Anastasia Belova <abelova@...ralinux.ru>
Thanks for the patch,
Acked-by: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
Tested-by: Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>
> ---
> net/xfrm/xfrm_compat.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_compat.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_compat.c
> index a0f62fa02e06..12405aa5bce8 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_compat.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_compat.c
> @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ static int xfrm_xlate64(struct sk_buff *dst, const struct nlmsghdr *nlh_src)
> nla_for_each_attr(nla, attrs, len, remaining) {
> int err;
>
> - switch (type) {
> + switch (nlh_src->nlmsg_type) {
> case XFRM_MSG_NEWSPDINFO:
> err = xfrm_nla_cpy(dst, nla, nla_len(nla));
> break;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists