Commit 732706af authored by Steffen Klassert's avatar Steffen Klassert

xfrm: Fix stack-out-of-bounds with misconfigured transport mode policies.

On policies with a transport mode template, we pass the addresses
from the flowi to xfrm_state_find(), assuming that the IP addresses
(and address family) don't change during transformation.

Unfortunately our policy template validation is not strict enough.
It is possible to configure policies with transport mode template
where the address family of the template does not match the selectors
address family. This lead to stack-out-of-bound reads because
we compare arddesses of the wrong family. Fix this by refusing
such a configuration, address family can not change on transport
mode.

We use the assumption that, on transport mode, the first templates
address family must match the address family of the policy selector.
Subsequent transport mode templates must mach the address family of
the previous template.
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
parent 75bf50f4
...@@ -1419,11 +1419,14 @@ static void copy_templates(struct xfrm_policy *xp, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut, ...@@ -1419,11 +1419,14 @@ static void copy_templates(struct xfrm_policy *xp, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut,
static int validate_tmpl(int nr, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut, u16 family) static int validate_tmpl(int nr, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut, u16 family)
{ {
u16 prev_family;
int i; int i;
if (nr > XFRM_MAX_DEPTH) if (nr > XFRM_MAX_DEPTH)
return -EINVAL; return -EINVAL;
prev_family = family;
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) { for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
/* We never validated the ut->family value, so many /* We never validated the ut->family value, so many
* applications simply leave it at zero. The check was * applications simply leave it at zero. The check was
...@@ -1435,6 +1438,12 @@ static int validate_tmpl(int nr, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut, u16 family) ...@@ -1435,6 +1438,12 @@ static int validate_tmpl(int nr, struct xfrm_user_tmpl *ut, u16 family)
if (!ut[i].family) if (!ut[i].family)
ut[i].family = family; ut[i].family = family;
if ((ut[i].mode == XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT) &&
(ut[i].family != prev_family))
return -EINVAL;
prev_family = ut[i].family;
switch (ut[i].family) { switch (ut[i].family) {
case AF_INET: case AF_INET:
break; break;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment