Is this a bug in linux-2.6.12 ipsec code function xfrm4_rcv_encap ??

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


I see a possible race in linux-2.6.12 ipsec code function xfrm4_rcv_encap.
I want to double check with the group.
The issue is with SMP(mostly) or Preemptible Kernels.
The race comes when someone flushes the SA's 
(setkey -Fexecuting  on another processor )
while xfrm_rcv_encap is executing one processor.

Below is the function code.
I am putting comments in the code where probably the race comes.
correct me if I am wrong.

int xfrm4_rcv_encap(struct sk_buff *skb, __u16 encap_type)
	int err;
	u32 spi, seq;
	struct sec_decap_state xfrm_vec[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH];
	struct xfrm_state *x;
	int xfrm_nr = 0;
	int decaps = 0;

	if ((err = xfrm4_parse_spi(skb, skb->nh.iph->protocol, &spi, &seq)) != 0)
		goto drop;

	do {
		struct iphdr *iph = skb->nh.iph;

		if (xfrm_nr == XFRM_MAX_DEPTH)
			goto drop;

		x = xfrm_state_lookup((xfrm_address_t *)&iph->daddr, spi,
iph->protocol, AF_INET);

First Race here . Check is being done without x being locked. What if
x becomes null because
of SA FLUSH (setkey -F) after the check.
		if (x == NULL)
			goto drop;

		if (unlikely(x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID))
			goto drop_unlock;

		if (x->props.replay_window && xfrm_replay_check(x, seq))
			goto drop_unlock;

		if (xfrm_state_check_expire(x))
			goto drop_unlock;

		xfrm_vec[xfrm_nr].decap.decap_type = encap_type;
		if (x->type->input(x, &(xfrm_vec[xfrm_nr].decap), skb))
			goto drop_unlock;

		/* only the first xfrm gets the encap type */
		encap_type = 0;

		if (x->props.replay_window)
			xfrm_replay_advance(x, seq);

		x->curlft.bytes += skb->len;


 Second Race Here. Note the above line unlock already called.
		xfrm_vec[xfrm_nr++].xvec = x;

		iph = skb->nh.iph;

Third Race Here . Again the Check is without Lock
		if (x->props.mode) {
			if (iph->protocol != IPPROTO_IPIP)
				goto drop;
			if (!pskb_may_pull(skb, sizeof(struct iphdr)))
				goto drop;
			if (skb_cloned(skb) &&
			    pskb_expand_head(skb, 0, 0, GFP_ATOMIC))
				goto drop;
			if (x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_DECAP_DSCP)
				ipv4_copy_dscp(iph, skb->h.ipiph);
			if (!(x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_NOECN))
			skb->mac.raw = memmove(skb->data - skb->mac_len,
					       skb->mac.raw, skb->mac_len);
			skb->nh.raw = skb->data;
			memset(&(IPCB(skb)->opt), 0, sizeof(struct ip_options));
			decaps = 1;

		if ((err = xfrm_parse_spi(skb, skb->nh.iph->protocol, &spi, &seq)) < 0)
			goto drop;
	} while (!err);

	/* Allocate new secpath or COW existing one. */

	if (!skb->sp || atomic_read(&skb->sp->refcnt) != 1) {
		struct sec_path *sp;
		sp = secpath_dup(skb->sp);
		if (!sp)
			goto drop;
		if (skb->sp)
		skb->sp = sp;
	if (xfrm_nr + skb->sp->len > XFRM_MAX_DEPTH)
		goto drop;

	memcpy(skb->sp->x+skb->sp->len, xfrm_vec, xfrm_nr*sizeof(struct
	skb->sp->len += xfrm_nr;

	if (decaps) {
		if (!(skb->dev->flags&IFF_LOOPBACK)) {
			skb->dst = NULL;
		return 0;
	} else {
		return -skb->nh.iph->protocol;

	while (--xfrm_nr >= 0)

	return 0;

I am just guessing.
If I am wrong I request anyone to give me a reason why it is not a bug ?
I haven't checked the IPv6 front and the IPSec outbound side.
Once this proves to be a bug I will check them.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux