netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: policy: match with both mark and mask on user interfaces

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: <CADvbK_ciXNO+iMHY7FGOAQiERbkmFncgo4AXPkbaA5Ek8apPyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 22:04:14 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Tobias Brunner <tobias@...ongswan.org>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...erus.ca>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: policy: match with both mark and mask on user interfaces

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:56 PM Tobias Brunner <tobias@...ongswan.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Xin,
>
> > To fix this duplicated policies issue, and also fix the issue in
> > commit ed17b8d377ea ("xfrm: fix a warning in xfrm_policy_insert_list"),
> > when doing add/del/get/update on user interfaces, this patch is to change
> > to look up a policy with both mark and mask by doing:
> >
> >   mark.v == pol->mark.v && mark.m == pol->mark.m
>
> Looks good, thanks a lot for your work on this.  All tests in our
> regression test suite complete successfully with this patch applied.
>
> Tested-by: Tobias Brunner <tobias@...ongswan.org>
>
> > and leave the check:
> >
> >   ((mark.v & mark.m) & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v.
> >
> > for tx/rx path only.
>
> If you are referring to the check in xfrm_policy_match() it's actually:
>
>   (fl->flowi_mark & pol->mark.m) != pol->mark.v
>
> Or more generically something like:
>
>   (mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v
>
> As we only have the mark on the packets/flow (no mask) to match against.
>
> > -static bool xfrm_policy_mark_match(struct xfrm_policy *policy,
> > +static bool xfrm_policy_mark_match(const struct xfrm_mark *mark,
> >                                  struct xfrm_policy *pol)
> >  {
> > -     if (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v &&
> > -         policy->priority == pol->priority)
> > -             return true;
> > -
> > -     return false;
> > +     return mark->v == pol->mark.v && mark->m == pol->mark.m;
> >  }
>
> I guess you could make that function `static inline`.
>
Thanks, Tobias, I will post v2 with your suggestion.

Just note that I have another patch similar to this one,
but for xfrm_state's mark. I will post it later too.
Please also check if it may cause any regression.