From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CC8C433E0 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 08:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0A12054F for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 08:40:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727837AbgEOIkD (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2020 04:40:03 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:42720 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726722AbgEOIkD (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2020 04:40:03 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2110EF20EA4F74314E39; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:40:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.166.215.154) by DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 15 May 2020 16:39:58 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: policy: Fix xfrm policy match To: , , , References: <20200421143149.45108-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <20200422125346.27756-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> CC: , , From: Yuehaibing Message-ID: <0015ec4c-0e9c-a9d2-eb03-4d51c5fbbe86@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 16:39:57 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200422125346.27756-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.166.215.154] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Friendly ping... Any plan for this issue? On 2020/4/22 20:53, YueHaibing wrote: > While update xfrm policy as follow: > > ip -6 xfrm policy update src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir in \ > priority 1 mark 0 mask 0x10 > ip -6 xfrm policy update src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir in \ > priority 2 mark 0 mask 0x00 > ip -6 xfrm policy update src fd00::1/128 dst fd00::2/128 dir in \ > priority 2 mark 0 mask 0x10 > > We get this warning: > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4808 at net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1548 > Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ... > CPU: 0 PID: 4808 Comm: ip Not tainted 5.7.0-rc1+ #151 > Call Trace: > RIP: 0010:xfrm_policy_insert_list+0x153/0x1e0 > xfrm_policy_inexact_insert+0x70/0x330 > xfrm_policy_insert+0x1df/0x250 > xfrm_add_policy+0xcc/0x190 [xfrm_user] > xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x1d1/0x1f0 [xfrm_user] > netlink_rcv_skb+0x4c/0x120 > xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x32/0x40 [xfrm_user] > netlink_unicast+0x1b3/0x270 > netlink_sendmsg+0x350/0x470 > sock_sendmsg+0x4f/0x60 > > Policy C and policy A has the same mark.v and mark.m, so policy A is > matched in first round lookup while updating C. However policy C and > policy B has same mark and priority, which also leads to matched. So > the WARN_ON is triggered. > > xfrm policy lookup should only be matched if the found policy has the > same lookup keys (mark.v & mark.m) and priority. > > Fixes: 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and different priorities") > Signed-off-by: YueHaibing > --- > v2: policy matched while have same mark and priority > --- > net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 15 +++++---------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c > index 297b2fdb3c29..2a0d7f5e6545 100644 > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c > @@ -1436,12 +1436,7 @@ static void xfrm_policy_requeue(struct xfrm_policy *old, > static bool xfrm_policy_mark_match(struct xfrm_policy *policy, > struct xfrm_policy *pol) > { > - u32 mark = policy->mark.v & policy->mark.m; > - > - if (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v && policy->mark.m == pol->mark.m) > - return true; > - > - if ((mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v && > + if ((policy->mark.v & policy->mark.m) == (pol->mark.v & pol->mark.m) && > policy->priority == pol->priority) > return true; > > @@ -1628,7 +1623,7 @@ __xfrm_policy_bysel_ctx(struct hlist_head *chain, u32 mark, u32 if_id, > hlist_for_each_entry(pol, chain, bydst) { > if (pol->type == type && > pol->if_id == if_id && > - (mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v && > + mark == (pol->mark.m & pol->mark.v) && > !selector_cmp(sel, &pol->selector) && > xfrm_sec_ctx_match(ctx, pol->security)) > return pol; > @@ -1726,7 +1721,7 @@ struct xfrm_policy *xfrm_policy_byid(struct net *net, u32 mark, u32 if_id, > hlist_for_each_entry(pol, chain, byidx) { > if (pol->type == type && pol->index == id && > pol->if_id == if_id && > - (mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v) { > + mark == (pol->mark.m & pol->mark.v)) { > xfrm_pol_hold(pol); > if (delete) { > *err = security_xfrm_policy_delete( > @@ -1898,7 +1893,7 @@ static int xfrm_policy_match(const struct xfrm_policy *pol, > > if (pol->family != family || > pol->if_id != if_id || > - (fl->flowi_mark & pol->mark.m) != pol->mark.v || > + fl->flowi_mark != (pol->mark.m & pol->mark.v) || > pol->type != type) > return ret; > > @@ -2177,7 +2172,7 @@ static struct xfrm_policy *xfrm_sk_policy_lookup(const struct sock *sk, int dir, > > match = xfrm_selector_match(&pol->selector, fl, family); > if (match) { > - if ((sk->sk_mark & pol->mark.m) != pol->mark.v || > + if (sk->sk_mark != (pol->mark.m & pol->mark.v) || > pol->if_id != if_id) { > pol = NULL; > goto out; >