[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200422093344.GY13121@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:33:44 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
CC: <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: policy: Only use mark as policy lookup key
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:31:49PM +0800, YueHaibing wrote:
> While update xfrm policy as follow:
>
> ip -6 xfrm policy update src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir in \
> priority 1 mark 0 mask 0x10
> ip -6 xfrm policy update src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir in \
> priority 2 mark 0 mask 0x00
> ip -6 xfrm policy update src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir in \
> priority 2 mark 0 mask 0x10
>
> We get this warning:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4808 at net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1548
> Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ...
> CPU: 0 PID: 4808 Comm: ip Not tainted 5.7.0-rc1+ #151
> Call Trace:
> RIP: 0010:xfrm_policy_insert_list+0x153/0x1e0
> xfrm_policy_inexact_insert+0x70/0x330
> xfrm_policy_insert+0x1df/0x250
> xfrm_add_policy+0xcc/0x190 [xfrm_user]
> xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x1d1/0x1f0 [xfrm_user]
> netlink_rcv_skb+0x4c/0x120
> xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x32/0x40 [xfrm_user]
> netlink_unicast+0x1b3/0x270
> netlink_sendmsg+0x350/0x470
> sock_sendmsg+0x4f/0x60
>
> Policy C and policy A has the same mark.v and mark.m, so policy A is
> matched in first round lookup while updating C. However policy C and
> policy B has same mark and priority, which also leads to matched. So
> the WARN_ON is triggered.
>
> xfrm policy lookup should only be matched when the found policy has the
> same lookup keys (mark.v & mark.m) no matter priority.
>
> Fixes: 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and different priorities")
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> ---
> net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 16 +++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> index 297b2fd..67d0469 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> @@ -1436,13 +1436,7 @@ static void xfrm_policy_requeue(struct xfrm_policy *old,
> static bool xfrm_policy_mark_match(struct xfrm_policy *policy,
> struct xfrm_policy *pol)
> {
> - u32 mark = policy->mark.v & policy->mark.m;
> -
> - if (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v && policy->mark.m == pol->mark.m)
> - return true;
> -
> - if ((mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v &&
> - policy->priority == pol->priority)
If you remove the priority check, you can't insert policies with matching
mark and different priorities anymore. This brings us back the old bug.
I plan to apply the patch from Xin Long, this seems to be the right way
to address this problem.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists