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: <20200928082450.29414-9-steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:24:50 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 8/8] xfrm: Use correct address family in xfrm_state_find

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>

The struct flowi must never be interpreted by itself as its size
depends on the address family.  Therefore it must always be grouped
with its original family value.

In this particular instance, the original family value is lost in
the function xfrm_state_find.  Therefore we get a bogus read when
it's coupled with the wrong family which would occur with inter-
family xfrm states.

This patch fixes it by keeping the original family value.

Note that the same bug could potentially occur in LSM through
the xfrm_state_pol_flow_match hook.  I checked the current code
there and it seems to be safe for now as only secid is used which
is part of struct flowi_common.  But that API should be changed
so that so that we don't get new bugs in the future.  We could
do that by replacing fl with just secid or adding a family field.

Reported-by: syzbot+577fbac3145a6eb2e7a5@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 48b8d78315bf ("[XFRM]: State selection update to use inner...")
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
index 5ff392e6f3c1..efc89a92961d 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
@@ -1019,7 +1019,8 @@ static void xfrm_state_look_at(struct xfrm_policy *pol, struct xfrm_state *x,
 	 */
 	if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_VALID) {
 		if ((x->sel.family &&
-		     !xfrm_selector_match(&x->sel, fl, x->sel.family)) ||
+		     (x->sel.family != family ||
+		      !xfrm_selector_match(&x->sel, fl, family))) ||
 		    !security_xfrm_state_pol_flow_match(x, pol, fl))
 			return;
 
@@ -1032,7 +1033,9 @@ static void xfrm_state_look_at(struct xfrm_policy *pol, struct xfrm_state *x,
 		*acq_in_progress = 1;
 	} else if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_ERROR ||
 		   x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_EXPIRED) {
-		if (xfrm_selector_match(&x->sel, fl, x->sel.family) &&
+		if ((!x->sel.family ||
+		     (x->sel.family == family &&
+		      xfrm_selector_match(&x->sel, fl, family))) &&
 		    security_xfrm_state_pol_flow_match(x, pol, fl))
 			*error = -ESRCH;
 	}
@@ -1072,7 +1075,7 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
 		    tmpl->mode == x->props.mode &&
 		    tmpl->id.proto == x->id.proto &&
 		    (tmpl->id.spi == x->id.spi || !tmpl->id.spi))
-			xfrm_state_look_at(pol, x, fl, encap_family,
+			xfrm_state_look_at(pol, x, fl, family,
 					   &best, &acquire_in_progress, &error);
 	}
 	if (best || acquire_in_progress)
@@ -1089,7 +1092,7 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
 		    tmpl->mode == x->props.mode &&
 		    tmpl->id.proto == x->id.proto &&
 		    (tmpl->id.spi == x->id.spi || !tmpl->id.spi))
-			xfrm_state_look_at(pol, x, fl, encap_family,
+			xfrm_state_look_at(pol, x, fl, family,
 					   &best, &acquire_in_progress, &error);
 	}
 
-- 
2.17.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ