new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+From 879f7080d7e141f415c79eaa3a8ac4a3dad0348b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Pauli <pauli@openssl.org>
+Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:28:20 +1100
+Subject: [PATCH] x509: excessive resource use verifying policy constraints
+
+A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions
+of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains
+that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this
+vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers
+exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service
+(DoS) attack on affected systems.
+
+Fixes CVE-2023-0464
+
+Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
+Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com>
+(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20569)
+
+Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=879f7080d7e141f415c79eaa3a8ac4a3dad0348b]
+CVE: CVE-2023-0464
+Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
+---
+ crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h | 8 +++++++-
+ crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c | 12 +++++++++---
+ crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
+ 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h
+index 5daf78d..344aa06 100644
+--- a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h
++++ b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_local.h
+@@ -111,6 +111,11 @@ struct X509_POLICY_LEVEL_st {
+ };
+
+ struct X509_POLICY_TREE_st {
++ /* The number of nodes in the tree */
++ size_t node_count;
++ /* The maximum number of nodes in the tree */
++ size_t node_maximum;
++
+ /* This is the tree 'level' data */
+ X509_POLICY_LEVEL *levels;
+ int nlevel;
+@@ -159,7 +164,8 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *tree_find_sk(STACK_OF(X509_POLICY_NODE) *sk,
+ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
+ X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
+ X509_POLICY_NODE *parent,
+- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree);
++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
++ int extra_data);
+ void policy_node_free(X509_POLICY_NODE *node);
+ int policy_node_match(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *lvl,
+ const X509_POLICY_NODE *node, const ASN1_OBJECT *oid);
+diff --git a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c
+index e2d7b15..d574fb9 100644
+--- a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c
++++ b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_node.c
+@@ -59,10 +59,15 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_find_node(const X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
+ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
+ X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
+ X509_POLICY_NODE *parent,
+- X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
++ int extra_data)
+ {
+ X509_POLICY_NODE *node;
+
++ /* Verify that the tree isn't too large. This mitigates CVE-2023-0464 */
++ if (tree->node_maximum > 0 && tree->node_count >= tree->node_maximum)
++ return NULL;
++
+ node = OPENSSL_zalloc(sizeof(*node));
+ if (node == NULL) {
+ X509V3err(X509V3_F_LEVEL_ADD_NODE, ERR_R_MALLOC_FAILURE);
+@@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
+ }
+ node->data = data;
+ node->parent = parent;
+- if (level) {
++ if (level != NULL) {
+ if (OBJ_obj2nid(data->valid_policy) == NID_any_policy) {
+ if (level->anyPolicy)
+ goto node_error;
+@@ -90,7 +95,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
+ }
+ }
+
+- if (tree) {
++ if (extra_data) {
+ if (tree->extra_data == NULL)
+ tree->extra_data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_new_null();
+ if (tree->extra_data == NULL){
+@@ -103,6 +108,7 @@ X509_POLICY_NODE *level_add_node(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *level,
+ }
+ }
+
++ tree->node_count++;
+ if (parent)
+ parent->nchild++;
+
+diff --git a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c
+index 6e8322c..6c7fd35 100644
+--- a/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c
++++ b/crypto/x509v3/pcy_tree.c
+@@ -13,6 +13,18 @@
+
+ #include "pcy_local.h"
+
++/*
++ * If the maximum number of nodes in the policy tree isn't defined, set it to
++ * a generous default of 1000 nodes.
++ *
++ * Defining this to be zero means unlimited policy tree growth which opens the
++ * door on CVE-2023-0464.
++ */
++
++#ifndef OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX
++# define OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX 1000
++#endif
++
+ /*
+ * Enable this to print out the complete policy tree at various point during
+ * evaluation.
+@@ -168,6 +180,9 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
+ return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL;
+ }
+
++ /* Limit the growth of the tree to mitigate CVE-2023-0464 */
++ tree->node_maximum = OPENSSL_POLICY_TREE_NODES_MAX;
++
+ /*
+ * http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-6.1.2, figure 3.
+ *
+@@ -184,7 +199,7 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
+ level = tree->levels;
+ if ((data = policy_data_new(NULL, OBJ_nid2obj(NID_any_policy), 0)) == NULL)
+ goto bad_tree;
+- if (level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree) == NULL) {
++ if (level_add_node(level, data, NULL, tree, 1) == NULL) {
+ policy_data_free(data);
+ goto bad_tree;
+ }
+@@ -243,7 +258,8 @@ static int tree_init(X509_POLICY_TREE **ptree, STACK_OF(X509) *certs,
+ * Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise
+ */
+ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+- X509_POLICY_DATA *data)
++ X509_POLICY_DATA *data,
++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
+ {
+ X509_POLICY_LEVEL *last = curr - 1;
+ int i, matched = 0;
+@@ -253,13 +269,13 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+ X509_POLICY_NODE *node = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_value(last->nodes, i);
+
+ if (policy_node_match(last, node, data->valid_policy)) {
+- if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, NULL) == NULL)
++ if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 0) == NULL)
+ return 0;
+ matched = 1;
+ }
+ }
+ if (!matched && last->anyPolicy) {
+- if (level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL)
++ if (level_add_node(curr, data, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL)
+ return 0;
+ }
+ return 1;
+@@ -272,7 +288,8 @@ static int tree_link_matching_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+ * Return value: 1 on success, 0 otherwise.
+ */
+ static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+- const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache)
++ const X509_POLICY_CACHE *cache,
++ X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
+ {
+ int i;
+
+@@ -280,7 +297,7 @@ static int tree_link_nodes(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+ X509_POLICY_DATA *data = sk_X509_POLICY_DATA_value(cache->data, i);
+
+ /* Look for matching nodes in previous level */
+- if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data))
++ if (!tree_link_matching_nodes(curr, data, tree))
+ return 0;
+ }
+ return 1;
+@@ -311,7 +328,7 @@ static int tree_add_unmatched(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+ /* Curr may not have anyPolicy */
+ data->qualifier_set = cache->anyPolicy->qualifier_set;
+ data->flags |= POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS;
+- if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree) == NULL) {
++ if (level_add_node(curr, data, node, tree, 1) == NULL) {
+ policy_data_free(data);
+ return 0;
+ }
+@@ -373,7 +390,7 @@ static int tree_link_any(X509_POLICY_LEVEL *curr,
+ }
+ /* Finally add link to anyPolicy */
+ if (last->anyPolicy &&
+- level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, last->anyPolicy, NULL) == NULL)
++ level_add_node(curr, cache->anyPolicy, last->anyPolicy, tree, 0) == NULL)
+ return 0;
+ return 1;
+ }
+@@ -555,7 +572,7 @@ static int tree_calculate_user_set(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree,
+ extra->qualifier_set = anyPolicy->data->qualifier_set;
+ extra->flags = POLICY_DATA_FLAG_SHARED_QUALIFIERS
+ | POLICY_DATA_FLAG_EXTRA_NODE;
+- node = level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, tree);
++ node = level_add_node(NULL, extra, anyPolicy->parent, tree, 1);
+ }
+ if (!tree->user_policies) {
+ tree->user_policies = sk_X509_POLICY_NODE_new_null();
+@@ -582,7 +599,7 @@ static int tree_evaluate(X509_POLICY_TREE *tree)
+
+ for (i = 1; i < tree->nlevel; i++, curr++) {
+ cache = policy_cache_set(curr->cert);
+- if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache))
++ if (!tree_link_nodes(curr, cache, tree))
+ return X509_PCY_TREE_INTERNAL;
+
+ if (!(curr->flags & X509_V_FLAG_INHIBIT_ANY)
+--
+2.25.1
+
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+From b013765abfa80036dc779dd0e50602c57bb3bf95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
+Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:52:55 +0000
+Subject: [PATCH] Ensure that EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY is checked even in leaf
+ certs
+
+Even though we check the leaf cert to confirm it is valid, we
+later ignored the invalid flag and did not notice that the leaf
+cert was bad.
+
+Fixes: CVE-2023-0465
+
+Reviewed-by: Hugo Landau <hlandau@openssl.org>
+Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
+(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20588)
+
+Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=b013765abfa80036dc779dd0e50602c57bb3bf95]
+CVE: CVE-2023-0465
+Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
+---
+ crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c | 11 +++++++++--
+ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
+index 925fbb5..1dfe4f9 100644
+--- a/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
++++ b/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c
+@@ -1649,18 +1649,25 @@ static int check_policy(X509_STORE_CTX *ctx)
+ }
+ /* Invalid or inconsistent extensions */
+ if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_INVALID) {
+- int i;
++ int i, cbcalled = 0;
+
+ /* Locate certificates with bad extensions and notify callback. */
+- for (i = 1; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) {
++ for (i = 0; i < sk_X509_num(ctx->chain); i++) {
+ X509 *x = sk_X509_value(ctx->chain, i);
+
+ if (!(x->ex_flags & EXFLAG_INVALID_POLICY))
+ continue;
++ cbcalled = 1;
+ if (!verify_cb_cert(ctx, x, i,
+ X509_V_ERR_INVALID_POLICY_EXTENSION))
+ return 0;
+ }
++ if (!cbcalled) {
++ /* Should not be able to get here */
++ X509err(X509_F_CHECK_POLICY, ERR_R_INTERNAL_ERROR);
++ return 0;
++ }
++ /* The callback ignored the error so we return success */
+ return 1;
+ }
+ if (ret == X509_PCY_TREE_FAILURE) {
+--
+2.25.1
+
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+From 0d16b7e99aafc0b4a6d729eec65a411a7e025f0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
+Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:15:47 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] Fix documentation of X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy()
+
+The function was incorrectly documented as enabling policy checking.
+
+Fixes: CVE-2023-0466
+
+Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
+Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
+(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20564)
+
+Upstream-Status: Backport from [https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=0d16b7e99aafc0b4a6d729eec65a411a7e025f0a]
+CVE: CVE-2023-0466
+Signed-off-by: Siddharth Doshi <sdoshi@mvista.com>
+---
+ doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod | 9 +++++++--
+ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod b/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod
+index f6f304b..aa292f9 100644
+--- a/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod
++++ b/doc/man3/X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_flags.pod
+@@ -92,8 +92,9 @@ B<trust>.
+ X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set_time() sets the verification time in B<param> to
+ B<t>. Normally the current time is used.
+
+-X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() enables policy checking (it is disabled
+-by default) and adds B<policy> to the acceptable policy set.
++X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() adds B<policy> to the acceptable policy set.
++Contrary to preexisting documentation of this function it does not enable
++policy checking.
+
+ X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies() enables policy checking (it is disabled
+ by default) and sets the acceptable policy set to B<policies>. Any existing
+@@ -377,6 +378,10 @@ and has no effect.
+
+ The X509_VERIFY_PARAM_get_hostflags() function was added in OpenSSL 1.1.0i.
+
++The function X509_VERIFY_PARAM_add0_policy() was historically documented as
++enabling policy checking however the implementation has never done this.
++The documentation was changed to align with the implementation.
++
+ =head1 COPYRIGHT
+
+ Copyright 2009-2020 The OpenSSL Project Authors. All Rights Reserved.
+--
+2.25.1
+
@@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ SRC_URI = "http://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-${PV}.tar.gz \
file://afalg.patch \
file://reproducible.patch \
file://reproducibility.patch \
+ file://CVE-2023-0464.patch \
+ file://CVE-2023-0465.patch \
+ file://CVE-2023-0466.patch \
"
SRC_URI_append_class-nativesdk = " \