Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 10 Apr 2026 18:34:06 -0500 | | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] security: remove BUG_ON in security_skb_classify_flow |
| |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 09:56:22AM +0800, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > > On 4/10/26 8:58 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 07:42:57PM +0800, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > > > A BPF program attached to the xfrm_decode_session hook can return a > > > non-zero value, which causes BUG_ON(rc) in security_skb_classify_flow() > > > to trigger a kernel panic. > > It would seem worth it to have pointed at the previous discussion at > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAEjxPJ5aA01in+Z1yLF1cwe-3uqL_E8SKGK4J294D5eRG5__5Q@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Based on that, I guess this is probably ok, but still, > > > > > Remove the BUG_ON and change the return type from void to int, so that > > > callers can optionally handle the error. > > but you don't have the existing callers handling the error. It's > > conceivable they won't care, but it's also possible that they were > > counting on a BUG_ON in that case. > > > > What *should* callers (icmp_reply, etc) do if an error code is > > returned? Should they ignore it? In that case, would it be > > better to change security_skb_classify_flow() to return void? > > > Thanks for your pointer. > > So I think Feng's patch is sufficient and can by applied ?
Well, selinux_xfrm_decode_session() calls selinux_xfrm_skb_sid_ingress() which *can* return -EINVAL.
So I'd like to know, what is supposed to happen in that case?
Stephen, do you know? Is it safe for callers to ignore this?
|  |