On 2020-06-25 15:33:33, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-06-22 at 19:32 -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > There are several possible pieces of allocated memory in a rule entry.
> > Create a function that can free all allocated memory for a given rule
> > entry.
> >
> > This patch introduces no functional changes but sets the groundwork for
> > some memory leak fixes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Having a function to release all memory associated with a policy rule
> in general is a good idea. However, in the case of the shallow copy,
> we're not removing any IMA rules, just updating the LSM info.
>
> There is an opportunity to transition from the builtin policy rules to
> a custom IMA policy. Afterwards IMA policy rules may only be
> appended.
>
> An IMA custom policy based on LSM info may be loaded prior to the LSM
> policy. These LSM based rules are inactive until the corresponding
> LSM rule is loaded. In some environments, LSM policies are loaded and
> removed frequently. The IMA rules themselves are not removed, just
> the LSM info is updated to reflect the current LSM info.
>
> > ---
> > security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > index 236a731492d1..1320333201c6 100644
> > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
> > @@ -261,6 +261,27 @@ static void ima_lsm_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> > security_filter_rule_free(entry->lsm[i].rule);
> > kfree(entry->lsm[i].args_p);
> > }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ima_free_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> > +{
> > + if (!entry)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * entry->template->fields may be allocated in ima_parse_rule() but that
> > + * reference is owned by the corresponding ima_template_desc element in
> > + * the defined_templates list and cannot be freed here
> > + */
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * When freeing newly added ima_rule_entry members, consider if you
> > + * need to disown any references after the shallow copy in
> > + * ima_lsm_copy_rule()
> > + */
> > + kfree(entry->fsname);
> > + kfree(entry->keyrings);
> > + ima_lsm_free_rule(entry);
> > kfree(entry);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -298,10 +319,18 @@ static struct ima_rule_entry *ima_lsm_copy_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> > pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
> > (char *)entry->lsm[i].args_p);
> > }
> > +
> > + /* Disown all references that were shallow copied */
> > + entry->fsname = NULL;
> > + entry->keyrings = NULL;
> > + entry->template = NULL;
> > return nentry;
> >
> > out_err:
> > - ima_lsm_free_rule(nentry);
> > + nentry->fsname = NULL;
> > + nentry->keyrings = NULL;
> > + nentry->template = NULL;
> > + ima_free_rule(nentry);
>
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -315,7 +344,7 @@ static int ima_lsm_update_rule(struct ima_rule_entry *entry)
> >
> > list_replace_rcu(&entry->list, &nentry->list);
> > synchronize_rcu();
> > - ima_lsm_free_rule(entry);
> > + ima_free_rule(entry);
>
> This should only update the LSM info, nothing else.
That's effectively what's happening since the fsname, keyrings, and
template pointers are being set to NULL, before exiting
ima_lsm_copy_rule(), in the ima_rule_entry that's going to be freed.
This patch is only introducing the function which can free all memory
associated with a rule and is starting to use it in place that a rule
entry is freed.
Would you rather me introduce ima_free_rule() for the upcoming memory
leak fixes in the series but not make use of it in
ima_lsm_update_rule()?
Tyler
>
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
