netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: validate assignment of maximal possible SEQ number

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: <aCwYj1F3LSUVZRg7@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 07:52:15 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
	<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Herbert Xu
	<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: validate assignment of maximal possible
 SEQ number

On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 01:56:22PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> 
> Users can set any seq/seq_hi/oseq/oseq_hi values. The XFRM core code
> doesn't prevent from them to set even 0xFFFFFFFF, however this value
> will cause for traffic drop.
> 
> Is is happening because SEQ numbers here mean that packet with such
> number was processed and next number should be sent on the wire. In this
> case, the next number will be 0, and it means overflow which causes to
> (expected) packet drops.
> 
> While it can be considered as misconfiguration and handled by XFRM
> datapath in the same manner as any other SEQ number, let's add
> validation to easy for packet offloads implementations which need to
> configure HW with next SEQ to send and not with current SEQ like it is
> done in core code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>

Applied, thanks Leon!