Re: [PATCH] LSM: general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/25/2022 2:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/12/2021 3:32 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 03:40:22PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
The usual LSM hook "bail on fail" scheme doesn't work for cases where
a security module may return an error code indicating that it does not
recognize an input.  In this particular case Smack sees a mount option
that it recognizes, and returns 0. A call to a BPF hook follows, which
returns -ENOPARAM, which confuses the caller because Smack has processed
its data.

Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Thanks!
Note, I think that we still have the SELinux issue we discussed in the
other thread:

       rc = selinux_add_opt(opt, param->string, &fc->security);
       if (!rc) {
               param->string = NULL;
               rc = 1;
       }

SELinux returns 1 not the expected 0. Not sure if that got fixed or is
queued-up for -next. In any case, this here seems correct independent of
that:
The aforementioned SELinux change depends on this patch. As the SELinux
code is today it blocks the problem seen with Smack, but introduces a
different issue. It prevents the BPF hook from being called.

So the question becomes whether the SELinux change should be included
here, or done separately. Without the security_fs_context_parse_param()
change the selinux_fs_context_parse_param() change results in messy
failures for SELinux mounts.
FWIW, this patch looks good to me, so:

Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

... and with respect to the SELinux hook implementation returning 1 on
success, I don't have a good answer and looking through my inbox I see
David Howells hasn't responded either.  I see nothing in the original
commit explaining why, so I'm going to say let's just change it to
zero and be done with it; the good news is that if we do it now we've
got almost a full cycle in linux-next to see what falls apart.  As far
as the question of one vs two patches, it might be good to put both
changes into a single patch just so that folks who do backports don't
accidentally skip one and create a bad kernel build.  Casey, did you
want to respin this patch or would you prefer me to submit another
version?

I can create a single patch. I tried the combination on Fedora
and it worked just fine. I'll rebase and resend.


Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>

  security/security.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 09533cbb7221..3cf0faaf1c5b 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -885,7 +885,19 @@ int security_fs_context_dup(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_context *src_fc)

  int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
  {
-    return call_int_hook(fs_context_parse_param, -ENOPARAM, fc, param);
+    struct security_hook_list *hp;
+    int trc;
+    int rc = -ENOPARAM;
+
+    hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.fs_context_parse_param,
+                         list) {
+            trc = hp->hook.fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
+            if (trc == 0)
+                    rc = 0;
+            else if (trc != -ENOPARAM)
+                    return trc;
+    }
+    return rc;
  }



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux