netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec v2] xfrm: Preserve xfrm interface secpath for packets forwarded

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:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 09:45:40 +0200
From:   Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Benedict Wong <benedictwong@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v2] xfrm: Preserve xfrm interface secpath for
 packets forwarded

> [...] my original change also happens to break Transport-in-Tunnel
> mode (which attempts to match the outer tunnel mode policy twice.). I
> wonder if it's worth just reverting first

Given that the offending commit has been picked up by -stable and now
by distros, I guess this regression will start affecting more IPsec
users.

May I suggest to go with a revert of the offending commit as an
immediate fix, and then bring in a fixed nested policy check from
Benedict in a separate effort?

I'll post a patch with the revert.

Thanks,
Martin