netdev - Re: [Patch net] xfrm: unify xfrm protocol checks

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

Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 21:15:17 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot+0bf0519d6e0de15914fe@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] xfrm: unify xfrm protocol checks

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:11 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:06:05PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >
> > Good point. Replacing IPSEC_PROTO_ANY with zero should
> > work too, but on the other hand, id.proto is still never allowed to
> > be any other protocol than these 6 listed, no?
>
> It should never be IPSEC_PROTO_ANY since that's used as a wildcard.
>
> IOW if you're going to tighten up the check for the id.proto filed
> in an actual state, you should distinguish between the case of an
> ID that's used to add/modify a state vs. an ID that's be used to
> query a state.  IPSEC_PROTO_ANY and zero should be denied in the
> first case and allowed in the second case.

Yeah, this makes sense. Let me see if I can figure this out correctly.

Thanks for the details!