From: Eran Ben Elisha Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:38:05 +0000 (+0200) Subject: tls: Fix mixing between async capable and async X-Git-Url: http://git.maquefel.me/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7754bd63ed081fa7c0aedd79ae0e8003465b641b;p=linux.git tls: Fix mixing between async capable and async Today, tls_sw_recvmsg is capable of using asynchronous mode to handle application data TLS records. Moreover, it assumes that if the cipher can be handled asynchronously, then all packets will be processed asynchronously. However, this assumption is not always true. Specifically, for AES-GCM in TLS1.2, it causes data corruption, and breaks user applications. This patch fixes this problem by separating the async capability from the decryption operation result. Fixes: c0ab4732d4c6 ("net/tls: Do not use async crypto for non-data records") Signed-off-by: Eran Ben Elisha Reviewed-by: Boris Pismenny Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- diff --git a/net/tls/tls_sw.c b/net/tls/tls_sw.c index 917caacd4d31f..68cd026fa57cd 100644 --- a/net/tls/tls_sw.c +++ b/net/tls/tls_sw.c @@ -1693,7 +1693,8 @@ int tls_sw_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, bool zc = false; int to_decrypt; int chunk = 0; - bool async; + bool async_capable; + bool async = false; skb = tls_wait_data(sk, psock, flags, timeo, &err); if (!skb) { @@ -1727,21 +1728,23 @@ int tls_sw_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, /* Do not use async mode if record is non-data */ if (ctx->control == TLS_RECORD_TYPE_DATA) - async = ctx->async_capable; + async_capable = ctx->async_capable; else - async = false; + async_capable = false; err = decrypt_skb_update(sk, skb, &msg->msg_iter, - &chunk, &zc, async); + &chunk, &zc, async_capable); if (err < 0 && err != -EINPROGRESS) { tls_err_abort(sk, EBADMSG); goto recv_end; } - if (err == -EINPROGRESS) + if (err == -EINPROGRESS) { + async = true; num_async++; - else if (prot->version == TLS_1_3_VERSION) + } else if (prot->version == TLS_1_3_VERSION) { tlm->control = ctx->control; + } /* If the type of records being processed is not known yet, * set it to record type just dequeued. If it is already known,