@@ -93,7 +93,28 @@ static int vti_rcv_proto(struct sk_buff *skb)
static int vti_rcv_tunnel(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
- return vti_rcv(skb, ip_hdr(skb)->saddr, true);
+ struct ip_tunnel_net *itn = net_generic(dev_net(skb->dev), vti_net_id);
+ const struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
+ struct ip_tunnel *tunnel;
+
+ tunnel = ip_tunnel_lookup(itn, skb->dev->ifindex, TUNNEL_NO_KEY,
+ iph->saddr, iph->daddr, 0);
+ if (tunnel) {
+ struct tnl_ptk_info tpi = {
+ .proto = htons(ETH_P_IP),
+ };
+
+ if (!xfrm4_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
+ goto drop;
+ if (iptunnel_pull_header(skb, 0, tpi.proto, false))
+ goto drop;
+ return ip_tunnel_rcv(tunnel, skb, &tpi, NULL, false);
+ }
+
+ return -EINVAL;
+drop:
+ kfree_skb(skb);
+ return 0;
}
static int vti_rcv_cb(struct sk_buff *skb, int err)
In Commit dd9ee3444014 ("vti4: Fix a ipip packet processing bug in 'IPCOMP' virtual tunnel"), it tries to receive IPIP packets in vti by calling xfrm_input(). This case happens when a small packet or frag sent by peer is too small to get compressed. However, xfrm_input() will still get to the IPCOMP path where skb sec_path is set, but never dropped while it should have been done in vti_ipcomp4_protocol.cb_handler(vti_rcv_cb), as it's not an ipcomp4 packet. This will cause that the packet can never pass xfrm4_policy_check() in the upper protocol rcv functions. So this patch is to call ip_tunnel_rcv() to process IPIP packets instead. Fixes: dd9ee3444014 ("vti4: Fix a ipip packet processing bug in 'IPCOMP' virtual tunnel") Reported-by: Xiumei Mu <xmu@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> --- net/ipv4/ip_vti.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)