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=-9.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham 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 9552DC433E1 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 11:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80351206E2 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 11:10:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726735AbgE2LKp (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 07:10:45 -0400 Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([62.96.220.36]:39898 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726161AbgE2LKn (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 07:10:43 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E4920519; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:10:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQUs7AIFOHPj; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:10:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-essen-01.secunet.de (mail-essen-01.secunet.de [10.53.40.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A06DE205B5; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:10:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) by mail-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:10:41 +0200 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:10:40 +0200 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4799E318076A; Fri, 29 May 2020 13:04:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Steffen Klassert To: David Miller CC: Herbert Xu , Steffen Klassert , Subject: [PATCH 14/15] xfrm: fix a warning in xfrm_policy_insert_list Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:04:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20200529110408.6349-15-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20200529110408.6349-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> References: <20200529110408.6349-1-steffen.klassert@secunet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-02.secunet.de (10.53.40.202) To mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org From: Xin Long 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 --- net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 7 +------ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c index 297b2fdb3c29..564aa6492e7c 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 == pol->mark.v && policy->priority == pol->priority) return true; -- 2.17.1