All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, davem@davemloft.net,
	herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, steffen.klassert@secunet.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix regression introduced by xdst pcpu cache
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:39:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT7FOeoJgX=KmMPr_ACKSgJ8V9DEHNM=cnfV9-sdrHC2g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171031230809.GD7663@breakpoint.cc>

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>> > matching before (as in this patch) or after calling xfrm_bundle_ok()?
>>
>> I would probably make the LSM call the last check, as you've done; but
>> I have to say that is just so it is consistent with the "LSM last"
>> philosophy and not because of any performance related argument.
>>
>> > ... Also,
>> > do we need to test xfrm->sel.family before calling xfrm_selector_match
>> > (as in this patch) or not - xfrm_state_look_at() does so when the
>> > state is XFRM_STATE_VALID but not when it is _ERROR or _EXPIRED?
>>
>> Speaking purely from a SELinux perspective, I'm not sure it matters:
>> as long as the labels match we are happy.  However, from a general
>> IPsec perspective it does seem like a reasonable thing.
>>
>> Granted I'm probably missing something, but it seems a little odd that
>> the code isn't already checking that the selectors match (... what am
>> I missing?).  It does check the policies, maybe that is enough in the
>> normal IPsec case?
>
> The assumption was that identical policies would yield the same SAs,
> but thats not correct.

Well, to be fair, I think the assumption is valid for normal,
unlabeled IPsec.  The problem comes when SELinux starts labeling SAs
and now you have multiple SAs for a given policy, each differing only
in the SELinux/LSM label.

Considering that adding the SELinux/LSM label effectively adds an
additional selector, I'm wondering if we should simply add the
SELinux/LSM label matching to xfrm_selector_match()?  Looking quickly
at the code it seems as though we always follow xfrm_selector_match()
with a LSM check anyway, the one exception being in
__xfrm_policy_check() ... which *might* be a valid exception, as we
don't do our access checks for inbound traffic at that point in the
stack.

>> > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
>> > index 2746b62..171818b 100644
>> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
>> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
>> > @@ -1820,6 +1820,11 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
>> >             !xfrm_pol_dead(xdst) &&
>> >             memcmp(xdst->pols, pols,
>> >                    sizeof(struct xfrm_policy *) * num_pols) == 0 &&
>> > +           (!xdst->u.dst.xfrm->sel.family ||
>> > +            xfrm_selector_match(&xdst->u.dst.xfrm->sel, fl,
>> > +                                xdst->u.dst.xfrm->sel.family)) &&
>> > +           security_xfrm_state_pol_flow_match(xdst->u.dst.xfrm,
>> > +                                              xdst->pols[0], fl) &&
>
> ... so this needs to walk the bundle and validate each selector.
>
> Alternatively we could always do template resolution and then check
> that all states found match those of the old pcpu xdst:
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> @@ -1786,19 +1786,23 @@ void xfrm_policy_cache_flush(void)
>         put_online_cpus();
>  }
>
> -static bool xfrm_pol_dead(struct xfrm_dst *xdst)
> +static bool xfrm_xdst_can_reuse(struct xfrm_dst *xdst,
> +                               struct xfrm_state * const xfrm[],
> +                               int num)
>  {
> -       unsigned int num_pols = xdst->num_pols;
> -       unsigned int pol_dead = 0, i;
> +       const struct dst_entry *dst = &xdst->u.dst;
> +       int i;
>
> -       for (i = 0; i < num_pols; i++)
> -               pol_dead |= xdst->pols[i]->walk.dead;
> +       if (xdst->num_xfrms != num)
> +               return false;
>
> -       /* Mark DST_OBSOLETE_DEAD to fail the next xfrm_dst_check() */
> -       if (pol_dead)
> -               xdst->u.dst.obsolete = DST_OBSOLETE_DEAD;
> +       for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> +               if (!dst || dst->xfrm != xfrm[i])
> +                       return false;
> +               dst = dst->child;
> +       }
>
> -       return pol_dead;
> +       return xfrm_bundle_ok(xdst);
>  }
>
>  static struct xfrm_dst *
> @@ -1812,26 +1816,28 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
>         struct dst_entry *dst;
>         int err;
>
> +       /* Try to instantiate a bundle */
> +       err = xfrm_tmpl_resolve(pols, num_pols, fl, xfrm, family);
> +       if (err <= 0) {
> +               if (err != 0 && err != -EAGAIN)
> +                       XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLERROR);
> +               return ERR_PTR(err);
> +       }
> +
>         xdst = this_cpu_read(xfrm_last_dst);
>         if (xdst &&
>             xdst->u.dst.dev == dst_orig->dev &&
>             xdst->num_pols == num_pols &&
> -           !xfrm_pol_dead(xdst) &&
>             memcmp(xdst->pols, pols,
>                    sizeof(struct xfrm_policy *) * num_pols) == 0 &&
> -           xfrm_bundle_ok(xdst)) {
> +           xfrm_xdst_can_reuse(xdst, xfrm, err)) {
>                 dst_hold(&xdst->u.dst);
> +               while (err > 0)
> +                       xfrm_state_put(xfrm[--err]);
>                 return xdst;
>         }
>
>         old = xdst;
> -       /* Try to instantiate a bundle */
> -       err = xfrm_tmpl_resolve(pols, num_pols, fl, xfrm, family);
> -       if (err <= 0) {
> -               if (err != 0 && err != -EAGAIN)
> -                       XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLERROR);
> -               return ERR_PTR(err);
> -       }
>
>         dst = xfrm_bundle_create(pols[0], xfrm, err, fl, dst_orig);
>         if (IS_ERR(dst)) {
> --
> 2.13.6

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: paul@paul-moore.com (Paul Moore)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix regression introduced by xdst pcpu cache
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:39:31 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT7FOeoJgX=KmMPr_ACKSgJ8V9DEHNM=cnfV9-sdrHC2g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171031230809.GD7663@breakpoint.cc>

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
>> > matching before (as in this patch) or after calling xfrm_bundle_ok()?
>>
>> I would probably make the LSM call the last check, as you've done; but
>> I have to say that is just so it is consistent with the "LSM last"
>> philosophy and not because of any performance related argument.
>>
>> > ... Also,
>> > do we need to test xfrm->sel.family before calling xfrm_selector_match
>> > (as in this patch) or not - xfrm_state_look_at() does so when the
>> > state is XFRM_STATE_VALID but not when it is _ERROR or _EXPIRED?
>>
>> Speaking purely from a SELinux perspective, I'm not sure it matters:
>> as long as the labels match we are happy.  However, from a general
>> IPsec perspective it does seem like a reasonable thing.
>>
>> Granted I'm probably missing something, but it seems a little odd that
>> the code isn't already checking that the selectors match (... what am
>> I missing?).  It does check the policies, maybe that is enough in the
>> normal IPsec case?
>
> The assumption was that identical policies would yield the same SAs,
> but thats not correct.

Well, to be fair, I think the assumption is valid for normal,
unlabeled IPsec.  The problem comes when SELinux starts labeling SAs
and now you have multiple SAs for a given policy, each differing only
in the SELinux/LSM label.

Considering that adding the SELinux/LSM label effectively adds an
additional selector, I'm wondering if we should simply add the
SELinux/LSM label matching to xfrm_selector_match()?  Looking quickly
at the code it seems as though we always follow xfrm_selector_match()
with a LSM check anyway, the one exception being in
__xfrm_policy_check() ... which *might* be a valid exception, as we
don't do our access checks for inbound traffic at that point in the
stack.

>> > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
>> > index 2746b62..171818b 100644
>> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
>> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
>> > @@ -1820,6 +1820,11 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
>> >             !xfrm_pol_dead(xdst) &&
>> >             memcmp(xdst->pols, pols,
>> >                    sizeof(struct xfrm_policy *) * num_pols) == 0 &&
>> > +           (!xdst->u.dst.xfrm->sel.family ||
>> > +            xfrm_selector_match(&xdst->u.dst.xfrm->sel, fl,
>> > +                                xdst->u.dst.xfrm->sel.family)) &&
>> > +           security_xfrm_state_pol_flow_match(xdst->u.dst.xfrm,
>> > +                                              xdst->pols[0], fl) &&
>
> ... so this needs to walk the bundle and validate each selector.
>
> Alternatively we could always do template resolution and then check
> that all states found match those of the old pcpu xdst:
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> @@ -1786,19 +1786,23 @@ void xfrm_policy_cache_flush(void)
>         put_online_cpus();
>  }
>
> -static bool xfrm_pol_dead(struct xfrm_dst *xdst)
> +static bool xfrm_xdst_can_reuse(struct xfrm_dst *xdst,
> +                               struct xfrm_state * const xfrm[],
> +                               int num)
>  {
> -       unsigned int num_pols = xdst->num_pols;
> -       unsigned int pol_dead = 0, i;
> +       const struct dst_entry *dst = &xdst->u.dst;
> +       int i;
>
> -       for (i = 0; i < num_pols; i++)
> -               pol_dead |= xdst->pols[i]->walk.dead;
> +       if (xdst->num_xfrms != num)
> +               return false;
>
> -       /* Mark DST_OBSOLETE_DEAD to fail the next xfrm_dst_check() */
> -       if (pol_dead)
> -               xdst->u.dst.obsolete = DST_OBSOLETE_DEAD;
> +       for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> +               if (!dst || dst->xfrm != xfrm[i])
> +                       return false;
> +               dst = dst->child;
> +       }
>
> -       return pol_dead;
> +       return xfrm_bundle_ok(xdst);
>  }
>
>  static struct xfrm_dst *
> @@ -1812,26 +1816,28 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
>         struct dst_entry *dst;
>         int err;
>
> +       /* Try to instantiate a bundle */
> +       err = xfrm_tmpl_resolve(pols, num_pols, fl, xfrm, family);
> +       if (err <= 0) {
> +               if (err != 0 && err != -EAGAIN)
> +                       XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLERROR);
> +               return ERR_PTR(err);
> +       }
> +
>         xdst = this_cpu_read(xfrm_last_dst);
>         if (xdst &&
>             xdst->u.dst.dev == dst_orig->dev &&
>             xdst->num_pols == num_pols &&
> -           !xfrm_pol_dead(xdst) &&
>             memcmp(xdst->pols, pols,
>                    sizeof(struct xfrm_policy *) * num_pols) == 0 &&
> -           xfrm_bundle_ok(xdst)) {
> +           xfrm_xdst_can_reuse(xdst, xfrm, err)) {
>                 dst_hold(&xdst->u.dst);
> +               while (err > 0)
> +                       xfrm_state_put(xfrm[--err]);
>                 return xdst;
>         }
>
>         old = xdst;
> -       /* Try to instantiate a bundle */
> -       err = xfrm_tmpl_resolve(pols, num_pols, fl, xfrm, family);
> -       if (err <= 0) {
> -               if (err != 0 && err != -EAGAIN)
> -                       XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLERROR);
> -               return ERR_PTR(err);
> -       }
>
>         dst = xfrm_bundle_create(pols[0], xfrm, err, fl, dst_orig);
>         if (IS_ERR(dst)) {
> --
> 2.13.6

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-11-01 21:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-30 14:58 [RFC PATCH] xfrm: fix regression introduced by xdst pcpu cache Stephen Smalley
2017-10-30 14:58 ` Stephen Smalley
2017-10-31 11:11 ` Florian Westphal
2017-10-31 11:11   ` Florian Westphal
     [not found]   ` <20171031111122.GB7663-E0PNVn5OA6ohrxcnuTQ+TQ@public.gmane.org>
2017-10-31 13:43     ` Stephen Smalley
2017-10-31 13:43       ` Stephen Smalley
2017-10-31 13:43       ` Stephen Smalley
2017-10-31 14:00       ` Stephen Smalley
2017-10-31 14:00         ` Stephen Smalley
2017-10-31 14:15       ` Florian Westphal
2017-10-31 14:15         ` Florian Westphal
2017-10-31 20:39 ` Paul Moore
2017-10-31 20:39   ` Paul Moore
2017-10-31 23:08   ` Florian Westphal
2017-10-31 23:08     ` Florian Westphal
2017-11-01 14:05     ` Stephen Smalley
2017-11-01 14:05       ` Stephen Smalley
2017-11-01 21:39     ` Paul Moore [this message]
2017-11-01 21:39       ` Paul Moore
2017-11-02 12:58       ` Stephen Smalley
2017-11-02 12:58         ` Stephen Smalley
2017-11-02 22:37         ` Paul Moore
2017-11-02 22:37           ` Paul Moore
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-10-27 15:28 Stephen Smalley
2017-10-27 15:28 ` Stephen Smalley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHC9VhT7FOeoJgX=KmMPr_ACKSgJ8V9DEHNM=cnfV9-sdrHC2g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.