Re: [PATCH net] wireguard: noise: reject responses for replaced initiations

["Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 11:18:33PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 08:35:55PM +0000, Jérémy Jean wrote:
> > WireGuard can accept an old handshake response after starting a new
> > handshake. This reinstalls old keys and resets transport counters and
> > replay state, enabling nonce reuse, replay and packet forgery. This
> > breaks confidentiality and integrity guarantees.
> > 
> > Compare ephemeral secrets under the write lock to reject responses for
> > replaced initiations.
> > 
> > Fixes: e7096c131e51 ("net: WireGuard secure network tunnel")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Assisted-by: LLM
> > Signed-off-by: Jérémy Jean <Jeremy.Jean@oss.cyber.gouv.fr>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireguard/noise.c | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireguard/noise.c b/drivers/net/wireguard/noise.c
> > index 9c0a09bf6c95..88cc9acc7dc7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireguard/noise.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireguard/noise.c
> > @@ -784,10 +784,12 @@ wg_noise_handshake_consume_response(struct message_handshake_response *src,
> >  
> >  	/* Success! Copy everything to peer */
> >  	down_write(&handshake->lock);
> > -	/* It's important to check that the state is still the same, while we
> > -	 * have an exclusive lock.
> > +	/* Check that this is still the initiation we authenticated against,
> > +	 * while we have an exclusive lock.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (handshake->state != state) {
> > +	if (handshake->state != state ||
> > +	    crypto_memneq(handshake->ephemeral_private, ephemeral_private,
> > +			  NOISE_PUBLIC_KEY_LEN)) {
> >  		up_write(&handshake->lock);
> >  		goto fail;
> >  	}
> 
> Could you describe the flow that you think causes a bug? Trying
> to recreate your mental model. Something like this?
> 
> == thread 1 ==
> 
> 	down_read(&handshake->lock);
> 	state = handshake->state;
> 	memcpy(hash, handshake->hash, NOISE_HASH_LEN);
> 	memcpy(chaining_key, handshake->chaining_key, NOISE_HASH_LEN);
> 	memcpy(ephemeral_private, handshake->ephemeral_private,
> 	       NOISE_PUBLIC_KEY_LEN);
> 	memcpy(preshared_key, handshake->preshared_key,
> 	       NOISE_SYMMETRIC_KEY_LEN);
> 	up_read(&handshake->lock);
> 
> 	if (state != HANDSHAKE_CREATED_INITIATION)
> 		goto fail;
> 
> 	/* e */
> 	message_ephemeral(e, src->unencrypted_ephemeral, chaining_key, hash);
> 
> 	/* ee */
> 	if (!mix_dh(chaining_key, NULL, ephemeral_private, e))
> 		goto fail;
> 
> 	/* se */
> 	if (!mix_dh(chaining_key, NULL, wg->static_identity.static_private, e))
> 		goto fail;
> 
> 	/* psk */
> 	mix_psk(chaining_key, hash, key, preshared_key);
> 
> 	/* {} */
> 	if (!message_decrypt(NULL, src->encrypted_nothing,
> 			     sizeof(src->encrypted_nothing), key, hash))
> 		goto fail;
> 
> == thread 2 ==
> 
> 	down_read(&handshake->static_identity->lock);
> 	down_write(&handshake->lock);
> 
> 	if (unlikely(!handshake->static_identity->has_identity))
> 		goto out;
> 
> 	dst->header.type = cpu_to_le32(MESSAGE_HANDSHAKE_INITIATION);
> 
> 	handshake_init(handshake->chaining_key, handshake->hash,
> 		       handshake->remote_static);
> 
> 	/* e */
> 	curve25519_generate_secret(handshake->ephemeral_private);
> 	if (!curve25519_generate_public(dst->unencrypted_ephemeral,
> 					handshake->ephemeral_private))
> 		goto out;
> 	message_ephemeral(dst->unencrypted_ephemeral,
> 			  dst->unencrypted_ephemeral, handshake->chaining_key,
> 			  handshake->hash);
> 
> 	/* es */
> 	if (!mix_dh(handshake->chaining_key, key, handshake->ephemeral_private,
> 		    handshake->remote_static))
> 		goto out;
> 
> 	/* s */
> 	message_encrypt(dst->encrypted_static,
> 			handshake->static_identity->static_public,
> 			NOISE_PUBLIC_KEY_LEN, key, handshake->hash);
> 
> 	/* ss */
> 	if (!mix_precomputed_dh(handshake->chaining_key, key,
> 				handshake->precomputed_static_static))
> 		goto out;
> 
> 	/* {t} */
> 	tai64n_now(timestamp);
> 	message_encrypt(dst->encrypted_timestamp, timestamp,
> 			NOISE_TIMESTAMP_LEN, key, handshake->hash);
> 
> 	dst->sender_index = wg_index_hashtable_insert(
> 		handshake->entry.peer->device->index_hashtable,
> 		&handshake->entry);
> 
> 	handshake->state = HANDSHAKE_CREATED_INITIATION;
> 	ret = true;
> 
> out:
> 	up_write(&handshake->lock);
> 	up_read(&handshake->static_identity->lock);
> 
> == thread 1 ==
> 
> 	down_write(&handshake->lock);
> 	/* It's important to check that the state is still the same, while we
> 	 * have an exclusive lock.
> 	 */
> 	if (handshake->state != state) {
> 		up_write(&handshake->lock);
> 		goto fail;
> 	}
> 	memcpy(handshake->remote_ephemeral, e, NOISE_PUBLIC_KEY_LEN);
> 	memcpy(handshake->hash, hash, NOISE_HASH_LEN);
> 	memcpy(handshake->chaining_key, chaining_key, NOISE_HASH_LEN);
> 	handshake->remote_index = src->sender_index;
> 	handshake->state = HANDSHAKE_CONSUMED_RESPONSE;
> 	up_write(&handshake->lock);
> 	ret_peer = peer;
> 	goto out;
> 
> And now begin_session is called on the older completed handshake rather
> than the half-completed newer handshake?
> 
> Or did you see some other flow?

Okay I think I worked something plausible out:

- two threads begin processing the same response
- the first succeeds. the second gets halfway, when it blocks on taking
  a lock that a queued initiation has taken
- the queued initiation does its thing and resets the state
- the second thread resumes and completes the old handshake and
  reinstalls keys

I'll continue analyzing real world feasibility, but in all cases, thank
you for the patch.

Jason