[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201229160127.GA30823@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 17:01:27 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Visa Hankala <visa@...kala.org>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: Fix wraparound in xfrm_policy_addr_delta()
Visa Hankala <visa@...kala.org> wrote:
> Use three-way comparison for address elements to avoid integer
> wraparound in the result of xfrm_policy_addr_delta().
>
> This ensures that the search trees are built and traversed correctly
> when the difference between compared address elements is larger
> than INT_MAX.
Please provide an update to tools/testing/selftests/net/xfrm_policy.sh
that shows that this is a problem.
> switch (family) {
> case AF_INET:
> - if (sizeof(long) == 4 && prefixlen == 0)
> - return ntohl(a->a4) - ntohl(b->a4);
> - return (ntohl(a->a4) & ((~0UL << (32 - prefixlen)))) -
> - (ntohl(b->a4) & ((~0UL << (32 - prefixlen))));
> + mask = ~0U << (32 - prefixlen);
> + ma = ntohl(a->a4) & mask;
> + mb = ntohl(b->a4) & mask;
This is suspicious. Is prefixlen == 0 impossible?
If not, then after patch
mask = ~0U << 32;
... and function returns 0.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists