netdev - [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1270053478.26743.111.camel@bigi>
Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:37:58 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Timo Teras <timo.teras@....fi>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] SPD basic actions per netdev

This may be oversight in current implementation and possibly
nobody has needed it before - hence it is not functional.

I want to have a drop-all policy on a per-interface level
for incoming packets and add exceptions as i need them.
[using the flow table is cheap if you have xfrm built in].
i.e something along the lines of:

#eth0, wild-card drop all
ip xfrm policy add src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 dev eth0 \
       dir in ptype main action block priority $SOME-HIGH-value
#eth0, exception
ip xfrm policy add blah blah dev eth0 \
dir in ptype main action allow priority $SOME-small-value
#eth1, wild-card drop all
ip xfrm policy add src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 dev eth1 \
       dir in ptype main action block priority $SOME-HIGH-value
#eth1 exception ...

The problem is this works as long as i dont specify an interface.
i.e, this would work in the in-direction:

ip xfrm policy add src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 \
        dir in ptype main action block priority $SOME-HIGH-value

This would not work:
ip xfrm policy add src 0.0.0.0/0 dst 0.0.0.0/0 dev eth0 \
       dir in ptype main action block priority $SOME-HIGH-value

The checks in the selector matching is the culprit, example for v4:

__xfrm4_selector_match(struct xfrm_selector *sel, struct flowi *fl)
{
        return  .... &&
                .... &&
                (fl->oif == sel->ifindex || !sel->ifindex);
}

i.e in the second case i have a non-zero sel->ifindex but
a zero fl->oif; so it wont match.

One approach to fix this is to pass the direction then i can do
in the function call, then i can do something along the lines of
matching if:
(fl_dir == FLOW_DIR_IN && (fl->iif == sel->ifindex || !sel->ifindex) ||
(fl->oif == sel->ifindex || !sel->ifindex);

Is there any reason the selector matching only assumes fl->oif?
Are there any unforeseen issues/breakages if i added a check for the
above.

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html