netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec 2/2] xfrm: Ensure policy checked for nested ESP tunnels

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: <20220922062710.GE2950045@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:27:10 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <nharold@...gle.com>,
        <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 ipsec 2/2] xfrm: Ensure policy checked for nested ESP
 tunnels

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:44:42PM -0700, Benedict Wong wrote:
> Thanks for the response; apologies for taking a while to re-patch this
> and verify.
> 
> I think this /almost/ does what we need to. I'm still seeing v6 ESP in v6
> ESP tunnels failing; I think it's due to the fact that the IPv6 ESP
> codepath does not trigger policy checks in the receive codepath until it
> hits the socket, or changes namespace.
> Perhaps if we verify policy unconditionally in xfrmi_rcv_cb? combined
> with your change above, this should ensure IPv6 ESP also checks policies,
> and inside that clear the secpath?

Hm, do you know why this is different to IPv4? IPv4 and IPv6 should
do the same regarding to policy checks.