This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
xfrm: Check if_id in inbound policy/secpath match
to the 5.4-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
xfrm-check-if_id-in-inbound-policy-secpath-match.patch
and it can be found in the queue-5.4 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
commit 5e968b03ae3f979e4cbb61b9119ebf11ab74bd0e
Author: Benedict Wong <benedictwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed May 10 01:14:14 2023 +0000
xfrm: Check if_id in inbound policy/secpath match
[ Upstream commit 8680407b6f8f5fba59e8f1d63c869abc280f04df ]
This change ensures that if configured in the policy, the if_id set in
the policy and secpath states match during the inbound policy check.
Without this, there is potential for ambiguity where entries in the
secpath differing by only the if_id could be mismatched.
Notably, this is checked in the outbound direction when resolving
templates to SAs, but not on the inbound path when matching SAs and
policies.
Test: Tested against Android kernel unit tests & CTS
Signed-off-by: Benedict Wong <benedictwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index 6f58be5a17711..9d4b405659058 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -3223,7 +3223,7 @@ xfrm_secpath_reject(int idx, struct sk_buff *skb, const struct flowi *fl)
static inline int
xfrm_state_ok(const struct xfrm_tmpl *tmpl, const struct xfrm_state *x,
- unsigned short family)
+ unsigned short family, u32 if_id)
{
if (xfrm_state_kern(x))
return tmpl->optional && !xfrm_state_addr_cmp(tmpl, x, tmpl->encap_family);
@@ -3234,7 +3234,8 @@ xfrm_state_ok(const struct xfrm_tmpl *tmpl, const struct xfrm_state *x,
(tmpl->allalgs || (tmpl->aalgos & (1<<x->props.aalgo)) ||
!(xfrm_id_proto_match(tmpl->id.proto, IPSEC_PROTO_ANY))) &&
!(x->props.mode != XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT &&
- xfrm_state_addr_cmp(tmpl, x, family));
+ xfrm_state_addr_cmp(tmpl, x, family)) &&
+ (if_id == 0 || if_id == x->if_id);
}
/*
@@ -3246,7 +3247,7 @@ xfrm_state_ok(const struct xfrm_tmpl *tmpl, const struct xfrm_state *x,
*/
static inline int
xfrm_policy_ok(const struct xfrm_tmpl *tmpl, const struct sec_path *sp, int start,
- unsigned short family)
+ unsigned short family, u32 if_id)
{
int idx = start;
@@ -3256,7 +3257,7 @@ xfrm_policy_ok(const struct xfrm_tmpl *tmpl, const struct sec_path *sp, int star
} else
start = -1;
for (; idx < sp->len; idx++) {
- if (xfrm_state_ok(tmpl, sp->xvec[idx], family))
+ if (xfrm_state_ok(tmpl, sp->xvec[idx], family, if_id))
return ++idx;
if (sp->xvec[idx]->props.mode != XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT) {
if (start == -1)
@@ -3666,7 +3667,7 @@ int __xfrm_policy_check(struct sock *sk, int dir, struct sk_buff *skb,
* are implied between each two transformations.
*/
for (i = xfrm_nr-1, k = 0; i >= 0; i--) {
- k = xfrm_policy_ok(tpp[i], sp, k, family);
+ k = xfrm_policy_ok(tpp[i], sp, k, family, if_id);
if (k < 0) {
if (k < -1)
/* "-2 - errored_index" returned */
