netdev - Re: [Patch] Fixing order of trinary operator when assigning the ifindex in XFRM Decode Session

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b6ffee14-c5ef-cec7-344a-331c142ed79c@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:28:52 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     "Chacon, Carlos A" <carlos.chacon@...ech.edu>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "steffen.klassert@...unet.com" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Fixing order of trinary operator when assigning the
 ifindex in XFRM Decode Session

Hi Carlos:

patches sent to netdev should be plain text only. Using git send-email would be best.

Also, the Subject line should start with the area affected (e.g., net: xfrm:) and really should be a bit shorter. e.g., something like this:

[PATCH] net: xfrm: fix flow oif in decode_session


On 1/12/17 1:01 PM, Chacon, Carlos A wrote:
> 
> Author: Carlos Chacon <carlos.chacon@...ech.edu>
> Date:   Thu Jan 12 11:42:32 2017 -0800
> 
>     Fixing order of trinary operator when assigning the ifindex in XFRM Decode Session
> 
>     For xfrm4_policy.c:_decode_session4 and xfrm6_policy.c:_decode_session6 the line
>         fl4->flowi4_oif = reverse ? skb->skb_iif : oif;
>         fl6->flowi6_oif = reverse ? skb->skb_iif : oif;
>     is assigning the incorrect oif to the flow_oif. It should read:
>         reverse ? oif : skb->skb_iif;
>     The "reverse" variable is defined in  net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:__xfrm_policy_check
>     when it checks if the dir is above the XFRM_POLICY_MASK if this returns false
>     it reverses the ifindex, but it should only reverse if it returns true.

The above explanation suggests the reverse flag in __xfrm_policy_check should be fixed. Can you check that and maybe __xfrm_policy_check2 as well?