netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 5/6] xfrm: add RX datapath protection for IPsec full offload mode

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 10:02:53 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        ipsec-devel <devel@...ux-ipsec.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 5/6] xfrm: add RX datapath protection for
 IPsec full offload mode

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:29:03AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 05:02:54PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:36:56PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > 
> > > Traffic received by device with enabled IPsec full offload should be
> > > forwarded to the stack only after decryption, packet headers and
> > > trailers removed.
> > > 
> > > Such packets are expected to be seen as normal (non-XFRM) ones, while
> > > not-supported packets should be dropped by the HW.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/net/xfrm.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/net/xfrm.h b/include/net/xfrm.h
> > > index 21be19ece4f7..9f9250fe1c4d 100644
> > > --- a/include/net/xfrm.h
> > > +++ b/include/net/xfrm.h
> > > @@ -1094,6 +1094,29 @@ xfrm_state_addr_cmp(const struct xfrm_tmpl *tmpl, const struct xfrm_state *x, un
> > >  	return !0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM
> > > +static inline struct xfrm_state *xfrm_input_state(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct sec_path *sp = skb_sec_path(skb);
> > > +
> > > +	return sp->xvec[sp->len - 1];
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +static inline struct xfrm_offload *xfrm_offload(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM
> > > +	struct sec_path *sp = skb_sec_path(skb);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!sp || !sp->olen || sp->len != sp->olen)
> > > +		return NULL;
> > > +
> > > +	return &sp->ovec[sp->olen - 1];
> > > +#else
> > > +	return NULL;
> > > +#endif
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_XFRM
> > >  int __xfrm_policy_check(struct sock *, int dir, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > >  			unsigned short family);
> > > @@ -1113,6 +1136,15 @@ static inline int __xfrm_policy_check2(struct sock *sk, int dir,
> > >  {
> > >  	struct net *net = dev_net(skb->dev);
> > >  	int ndir = dir | (reverse ? XFRM_POLICY_MASK + 1 : 0);
> > > +	struct xfrm_offload *xo = xfrm_offload(skb);
> > > +	struct xfrm_state *x;
> > > +
> > > +	if (xo) {
> > > +		x = xfrm_input_state(skb);
> > > +		if (x->xso.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_FULL)
> > > +			return (xo->flags & CRYPTO_DONE) &&
> > > +			       (xo->status & CRYPTO_SUCCESS);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > We can not exit without doing the policy check here. The inner
> > packet could still match a block policy in software. Maybe
> > we can reset the secpath and do the policy check.
> 
> We checked that both policy and state were offloaded. In such case,
> driver returned that everything ok and the packet is handled.
> 
> SW policy will be in lower priority, so we won't catch it.

Ok.