From patchwork Mon Jun 1 17:53:53 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Greg KH X-Patchwork-Id: 224877 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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT 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 CF25EC433DF for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9672206C3 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 18:58:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591037884; bh=33bvOVDSUwXLbvH5MeWHPlEukOq8n7BbPWyhko3vO4o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=twMX3Qa/4N4LoQ07n6SaRYxJhVQFrxkrBHjqBlWixcPZTtlUZoQE6VEiOvXyBej0J ZyIAbYc6qLe0A2GJUKUJYm+TrzrYOFqoTT/XmnyyJOhEm8nS3pjytfFHzfeP2LmU2I 2kIppV0ZUAS8rUaCpXXzxoOUrBTd1ShTniWo3Jf0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729352AbgFAR7c (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:59:32 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:41912 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729348AbgFAR73 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:59:29 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3ED8207D0; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 17:59:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591034369; bh=33bvOVDSUwXLbvH5MeWHPlEukOq8n7BbPWyhko3vO4o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uCMhcIBDX7yWniqQSCaHzTR/WtqHQOHAirJ7HoZy7dBq/2ecOB0vgPKr10Bp/8ieN LKCVP8UhkofqQ2fMDjd4NiyDt1ivPYHD52LmFs7bM6VI56+3CycqOdZHmqakRqQiKj w41QqVImCqZUtvmRHwTlSfheOGCvc0eFvvZfNLRI= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Xiumei Mu , Xin Long , Steffen Klassert Subject: [PATCH 4.9 46/61] xfrm: fix a warning in xfrm_policy_insert_list Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:53:53 +0200 Message-Id: <20200601174020.045122720@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.26.2 In-Reply-To: <20200601174010.316778377@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20200601174010.316778377@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org From: Xin Long commit ed17b8d377eaf6b4a01d46942b4c647378a79bdd upstream. This waring can be triggered simply by: # ip xfrm policy update src 192.168.1.1/24 dst 192.168.1.2/24 dir in \ priority 1 mark 0 mask 0x10 #[1] # ip xfrm policy update src 192.168.1.1/24 dst 192.168.1.2/24 dir in \ priority 2 mark 0 mask 0x1 #[2] # ip xfrm policy update src 192.168.1.1/24 dst 192.168.1.2/24 dir in \ priority 2 mark 0 mask 0x10 #[3] Then dmesg shows: [ ] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 7265 at net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1548 [ ] RIP: 0010:xfrm_policy_insert_list+0x2f2/0x1030 [ ] Call Trace: [ ] xfrm_policy_inexact_insert+0x85/0xe50 [ ] xfrm_policy_insert+0x4ba/0x680 [ ] xfrm_add_policy+0x246/0x4d0 [ ] xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x331/0x5c0 [ ] netlink_rcv_skb+0x121/0x350 [ ] xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x66/0x80 [ ] netlink_unicast+0x439/0x630 [ ] netlink_sendmsg+0x714/0xbf0 [ ] sock_sendmsg+0xe2/0x110 The issue was introduced by Commit 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and different priorities"). After that, the policies [1] and [2] would be able to be added with different priorities. However, policy [3] will actually match both [1] and [2]. Policy [1] was matched due to the 1st 'return true' in xfrm_policy_mark_match(), and policy [2] was matched due to the 2nd 'return true' in there. It caused WARN_ON() in xfrm_policy_insert_list(). This patch is to fix it by only (the same value and priority) as the same policy in xfrm_policy_mark_match(). Thanks to Yuehaibing, we could make this fix better. v1->v2: - check policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v only without mask. Fixes: 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and different priorities") Reported-by: Xiumei Mu Signed-off-by: Xin Long Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 7 +------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c @@ -757,12 +757,7 @@ static void xfrm_policy_requeue(struct x 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 == pol->mark.v && policy->priority == pol->priority) return true;