netdev - Re: SELinux/IP_PASSSEC regression in 4.13-rcX

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

Message-ID: <1500997019.13149.12.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:36:59 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: SELinux/IP_PASSSEC regression in 4.13-rcX

On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 10:45 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 22:00 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > I'm happy to test this, but if you are curious, you can find the
> > > > selinux-testsuite at the link below; the "inet_socket" tests are the
> > > > ones relevant to this problem.
> > > > 
> > > > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite
> > 
> > Thanks, I'll have a look.
> > 
> > > > However, I believe there is a problem with this patch, see below.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > > > -#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> > > > > +#define UDP_SKB_IS_STATELESS 0x80000000
> > > > > +
> > > > >  static void udp_set_dev_scratch(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -       struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch;
> > > > > +       struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch = udp_skb_scratch(skb);
> > > > > 
> > > > >         BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct udp_dev_scratch) > sizeof(long));
> > > > 
> > > > The BUILD_BUG_ON() assertion no longer appears to be correct with this patch.
> > > 
> > > Nevermind, I just took a closer look at this and realized I made a
> > > mistake when applying your patch (had to apply manually for some
> > > reason).  I'm building a test kernel now.
> > 
> > Yup, I compile-tested the code, plus some basic sanity checks, so the
> > build breakage felt unexpected.
> > 
> > Thanks for testing,
> 
> I just did a quick run through the selinux-testsuite and the
> regression would appear to be fixed, thanks!  I'm guessing you'll send
> this to DaveM so we can get this fixed before v4.13 is released?
> 
> Tested-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>

Sure. I'll submit soon for -net.

Cheers,

Paolo