On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 3/12/2024 10:06 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 11:27 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 3/12/2024 6:25 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 6:16 AM Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 01:56:50PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> --- a/security/lsm_syscalls.c
> >>>>> +++ b/security/lsm_syscalls.c
> >>>>> @@ -55,3 +55,42 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(lsm_get_self_attr, unsigned int, attr, struct lsm_ctx __user *,
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> return security_getselfattr(attr, ctx, size, flags);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +/**
> >>>>> + * sys_lsm_list_modules - Return a list of the active security modules
> >>>>> + * @ids: the LSM module ids
> >>>>> + * @size: pointer to size of @ids, updated on return
> >>>>> + * @flags: reserved for future use, must be zero
> >>>>> + *
> >>>>> + * Returns a list of the active LSM ids. On success this function
> >>>>> + * returns the number of @ids array elements. This value may be zero
> >>>>> + * if there are no LSMs active. If @size is insufficient to contain
> >>>>> + * the return data -E2BIG is returned and @size is set to the minimum
> >>>>> + * required size. In all other cases a negative value indicating the
> >>>>> + * error is returned.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(lsm_list_modules, u64 __user *, ids, size_t __user *, size,
> >>>>> + u32, flags)
> >>>> I'm sorry but the size of userspace size_t is different from the kernel one
> >>>> on 32-bit compat architectures.
> >>> D'oh, yes, thanks for pointing that out. It would have been nice to
> >>> have caught that before v6.8 was released, but I guess it's better
> >>> than later.
> >>>
> >>>> Looks like there has to be a COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE3(lsm_list_modules, ..)
> >>>> now. Other two added lsm syscalls also have this issue.
> >>> Considering that Linux v6.8, and by extension these syscalls, are only
> >>> a few days old, I think I'd rather see us just modify the syscalls and
> >>> avoid the compat baggage. I'm going to be shocked if anyone has
> >>> shifted to using the new syscalls yet, and even if they have (!!),
> >>> moving from a "size_t" type to a "u64" should be mostly transparent
> >>> for the majority of native 64-bit systems. Those running the absolute
> >>> latest kernels on 32-bit systems with custom or bleeding edge
> >>> userspace *may* see a slight hiccup, but I think that user count is in
> >>> the single digits, if not zero.
> >>>
> >>> Let's fix this quickly with /size_t/u64/ in v6.8.1 and avoid the
> >>> compat shim if we can.
> >>>
> >>> Casey, do you have time to put together a patch for this (you should
> >>> fix the call chains below the syscalls too)? If not, please let me
> >>> know and I'll get a patch out ASAP.
> >> Grumble. Yes, I'll get right on it.
> > Great, thanks Casey.
>
> Look like lsm_get_self_attr() needs the same change. lsm_set_self_attr()
> doesn't, need it, but I'm tempted to change it as well for consistency.
> Thoughts?
As lsm_get_self_attr() has the same issue, it needs the same treatment.
lsm_set_self_attr() could be left unchanged. In fact, changing the type
of syscall arguments from size_t to an explicit 64-bit type would be
problematic because 32-bit syscalls cannot have 64-bit arguments.
--
ldv
