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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220930074748.GZ2950045@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:47:48 +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 Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 06:33:55PM -0700, Benedict Wong wrote:
> Ahh, I've never had an IPv4 server without a NAT to test against, I'd presume
> this is identical there. The only comparison that I've been able to do  was IPv4
> UDP-encap vs IPv6 ESP.
> 
> We could instead add the policy check to the ESP input path if that is
> the correct place.

Ok, looks like there is a policy check missing for xfrm_interfaces
when already one (or more) transformations happened.

The best would be to add a separate xfrm_interfaces rcv handler
(in struct xfrm6_protocol/xfrm4_protocol) for esp4/6 and do
the policy check if we have a secpath present.

That should fix it in combination with reseting the secpath in
the policy_check as I did in my previous patch.