Re: [PATCH] xfrm: policy: Only use mark as policy lookup key

[Xin Long]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:41 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 8:18 PM Yuehaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020/4/22 17:33, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:31:49PM +0800, 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 when the found policy has the
> > >> same lookup keys (mark.v & mark.m) no matter priority.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and different priorities")
> > >> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >>  net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 16 +++++-----------
> > >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> > >> index 297b2fd..67d0469 100644
> > >> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> > >> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> > >> @@ -1436,13 +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 &&
> > >> -        policy->priority == pol->priority)
> > >
> > > If you remove the priority check, you can't insert policies with matching
> > > mark and different priorities anymore. This brings us back the old bug.
> >
> > Yes, this is true.
> >
> > >
> > > I plan to apply the patch from Xin Long, this seems to be the right way
> > > to address this problem.
> >
> > That still brings an issue, update like this:
> >
> > policy A (mark.v = 1, mark.m = 0, priority = 1)
> > policy B (mark.v = 1, mark.m = 0, priority = 1)
> >
> > A and B will all in the list.
> I think this is another issue even before:
> 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching mark and
> different priorities")
>
> >
> > So should do this:
> >
> >  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;
> "mark.v & mark.m" looks weird to me, it should be:
> ((something & mark.m) == mark.v)
>
> So why should we just do this here?:
*shouldn't, sorry ;D

> (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v && policy->mark.m == pol->mark.m &&
>  policy->priority == pol->priority)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >