@@ -3015,7 +3015,7 @@ const struct nla_policy xfrma_policy[XFRMA_MAX+1] = {
[XFRMA_ALG_COMP] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_algo) },
[XFRMA_ENCAP] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_encap_tmpl) },
[XFRMA_TMPL] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_user_tmpl) },
- [XFRMA_SEC_CTX] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_sec_ctx) },
+ [XFRMA_SEC_CTX] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_user_sec_ctx) },
[XFRMA_LTIME_VAL] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_lifetime_cur) },
[XFRMA_REPLAY_VAL] = { .len = sizeof(struct xfrm_replay_state) },
[XFRMA_REPLAY_THRESH] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
According to all consumers code of attrs[XFRMA_SEC_CTX], like * verify_sec_ctx_len(), convert to xfrm_user_sec_ctx* * xfrm_state_construct(), call security_xfrm_state_alloc whose prototype is int security_xfrm_state_alloc(.., struct xfrm_user_sec_ctx *sec_ctx); * copy_from_user_sec_ctx(), convert to xfrm_user_sec_ctx * ... It seems that the exptected parsing result for XFRMA_SEC_CTX should be structure xfrm_user_sec_ctx, and the current xfrm_sec_ctx is confusing and misleading (Luckily, they happen to have same size 8 bytes). This commit amend the policy structure to xfrm_user_sec_ctx to avoid ambiguity. Fixes: cf5cb79f6946 ("[XFRM] netlink: Establish an attribute policy") Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@zju.edu.cn> --- net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)