On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:40:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 8/27/2021 8:30 AM, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 08:50:44AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:52 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot > >>>>>> <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> syzbot found the following issue on: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> HEAD commit: 62fb9874 Linux 5.13 > >>>>>>> git tree: upstream > >>>>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000 > >>>>>>> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58 > >>>>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943 > >>>>>>> compiler: Debian clang version 11.0.1-2 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > >>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue > >>>>> This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by > >>>>> David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there > >>>>> may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced > >>>>> by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose. > >>>>> > >>>>>> The crash was triggered by this test case: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 21:55:33 executing program 1: > >>>>>> r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1) > >>>>>> fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot', > >>>>>> &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param(): > >>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue: > >>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919 > >>>>>> +So selinux maintainers as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN > >>>>>>> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007] > >>>>>>> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0 > >>>>>>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 > >>>>>>> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054 > >>>>>>> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db > >>>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246 > >>>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000 > >>>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000 > >>>>>>> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95 > >>>>>>> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000 > >>>>>>> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c > >>>>>>> FS: 00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > >>>>>>> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > >>>>>>> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0 > >>>>>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > >>>>>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > >>>>>>> Call Trace: > >>>>>>> legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537 > >>>>>>> vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117 > >>>> It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's > >>>> look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem > >>>> is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks. In both > >>>> the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0 > >>>> (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I > >>>> don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are > >>>> not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from > >>>> vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param(): > >>>> > >>>> Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 : > >>>> > >>>> ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param); > >>>> if (ret != -ENOPARAM) > >>>> /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so > >>>> * don't pass to the FS. > >>>> */ > >>>> return ret; > >>>> > >>>> if (fc->ops->parse_param) { > >>>> ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param); > >>>> if (ret != -ENOPARAM) > >>>> return ret; > >>>> } > >>> Hi Paul, > >>> > >>> You are right. > >>> I almost connected the dots, but not exactly. > >>> Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in > >>> smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and > >>> takes ownership of the string). > >>> > >>> I don't see how the crash happened... > >> FWIW, I poked around a bit too and couldn't see anything obvious > >> either, but I can't pretend to know as much about the VFS layer as the > >> VFS folks. Hopefully they might have better luck. > > I'm not sure that's right. > > If the smack hook runs first, it will set > > > > param->string = NULL > > > > now the selinux hook runs. But the selinux param hook doesn't end up in > > selinux_add_opt() instead it will fail before > > opt = fs_parse(fc, selinux_fs_parameters, param, &result); > > which will return -ENOPARAM since it's not a selinux option subsequently > > causing the crash. > > > > Does that sound plausible? > > No. You can't (currently) have both Smack and SELinux enabled at Ah, I thought that already worked. :) I'm EOD here but I'll try to look closer tomorrow or after the weekend. Christian
