netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: policy: Fix xfrm policy match

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

Message-ID: <CADvbK_eXW24SkuLUOKkcg4JPa8XLcWpp6RNCrQT+=okaWe+GDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 14:49:07 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:     Yuehaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        davem <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: policy: Fix xfrm policy match

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:53 PM Steffen Klassert
<steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:39:57PM +0800, Yuehaibing wrote:
> >
> > Friendly ping...
> >
> > Any plan for this issue?
>
> There was still no consensus between you and Xin on how
> to fix this issue. Once this happens, I consider applying
> a fix.
>
Sorry, Yuehaibing, I can't really accept to do: (A->mark.m & A->mark.v)
I'm thinking to change to:

 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 (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v &&
+           (policy->mark.m == pol->mark.m ||
+            policy->priority == pol->priority))
                return true;

        return false;

which means we consider (the same value and mask) or
(the same value and priority) as the same one. This will
cover both problems.