netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v12 3/4] xfrm: Add dir validation to "in" data path lookup

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZithxsHLhPw1ZVHM@Antony2201.local>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:11:50 +0200
From: Antony Antony <antony@...nome.org>
To: nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>, antony.antony@...unet.com,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	devel@...ux-ipsec.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v12 3/4] xfrm: Add dir validation to "in" data
 path lookup

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:04:12PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel via Devel wrote:
> Le 24/04/2024 à 10:40, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
> [snip]
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst
> >>> index c237bef03fb6..b4f4d9552dea 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_proc.rst
> >>> @@ -73,6 +73,9 @@ XfrmAcquireError:
> >>>  XfrmFwdHdrError:
> >>>  	Forward routing of a packet is not allowed
> >>>
> >>> +XfrmInStateDirError:
> >>> +        State direction input mismatched with lookup path direction
> >> It's a bit confusing because when this error occurs, the state direction is not
> >> 'input'.
> > 
> > Agree.
> > 
> >> This statistic is under 'Inbound errors', so may something like this is enough:
> >> 'State direction is output.'
> > 
> > Maybe something like:
> > 
> > State direction mismatch (lookup found an output state on the input path, expected input or no direction)

This is better. Fixed in v13.

> > 
> > It's a bit verbose, but I think those extra details would help users
> > understand what went wrong.
> > 
> Sure, it's ok for me.

thanks,
-antony