netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: Reject optional tunnel/BEET mode templates in outbound policies

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, 9 May 2023 06:27:05 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Tobias Brunner <tobias@...ongswan.org>
CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "David
 S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec] xfrm: Reject optional tunnel/BEET mode templates
 in outbound policies

On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 11:03:36AM +0200, Tobias Brunner wrote:
> On 08.05.23 07:59, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 12:16:16PM +0200, Tobias Brunner wrote:
> >> xfrm_state_find() uses `encap_family` of the current template with
> >> the passed local and remote addresses to find a matching state.
> >> If an optional tunnel or BEET mode template is skipped in a mixed-family
> >> scenario, there could be a mismatch causing an out-of-bounds read as
> >> the addresses were not replaced to match the family of the next template.
> >>
> >> While there are theoretical use cases for optional templates in outbound
> >> policies, the only practical one is to skip IPComp states in inbound
> >> policies if uncompressed packets are received that are handled by an
> >> implicitly created IPIP state instead.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tobias Brunner <tobias@...ongswan.org>
> > 
> > Your patch seems to be corrupt:
> > 
> > warning: Patch sent with format=flowed; space at the end of lines might be lost.
> > Applying: af_key: Reject optional tunnel/BEET mode templates in outbound policies
> > error: corrupt patch at line 18
> 
> Sorry about that, I'll resend.
> 
> > Also, please add a 'Fixes' tag, so that it can be backported.
> 
> What should the target commit be?  I saw you used 1da177e4c3f4
> ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") in your fix, but maybe the more recent 8444cf712c5f
> ("xfrm: Allow different selector family in temporary state") would fit
> better as that changed `family` to `encap_family` in
> `xfrm_state_find()`?  (I guess it doesn't matter in practice as 2.6.36
> is way older than any LTS kernel this will get backported to.)

I think it was broken, even before 8444cf712c5f "xfrm: Allow different
selector family in temporary state"), so I used 1da177e4c3f4.
But as you said, it doesn't really matter. Both commits are
much older than any currently active LTS kernel.