On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:45 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-10-11 at 15:30 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 17:43 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 11:41 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 12:57 PM Roberto Sassu
> > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > IMA stores a pointer of the ima_iint_cache structure, containing integrity
> > > > > metadata, in the inode security blob. However, check and assignment of this
> > > > > pointer is not atomic, and it might happen that two tasks both see that the
> > > > > iint pointer is NULL and try to set it, causing a memory leak.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ensure that the iint check and assignment is guarded, by adding a lockdep
> > > > > assertion in ima_inode_get().
> > > > >
> > > > > Consequently, guard the remaining ima_inode_get() calls, in
> > > > > ima_post_create_tmpfile() and ima_post_path_mknod(), to avoid the lockdep
> > > > > warnings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c | 5 +++++
> > > > > security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> > > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> > > > > index c176fd0faae7..fe676ccec32f 100644
> > > > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> > > > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_iint.c
> > > > > @@ -87,8 +87,13 @@ static void ima_iint_free(struct ima_iint_cache *iint)
> > > > > */
> > > > > struct ima_iint_cache *ima_inode_get(struct inode *inode)
> > > > > {
> > > > > + struct ima_iint_cache_lock *iint_lock;
> > > > > struct ima_iint_cache *iint;
> > > > >
> > > > > + iint_lock = ima_inode_security(inode->i_security);
> > > > > + if (iint_lock)
> > > > > + lockdep_assert_held(&iint_lock->mutex);
> > > > > +
> > > > > iint = ima_iint_find(inode);
> > > > > if (iint)
> > > > > return iint;
> > > >
> > > > Can you avoid the ima_iint_find() call here and just do the following?
> > > >
> > > > /* not sure if you need to check !iint_lock or not? */
> > > > if (!iint_lock)
> > > > return NULL;
> > > > iint = iint_lock->iint;
> > > > if (!iint)
> > > > return NULL;
> > >
> > > Yes, I also like it much more.
> >
> > Yes, testing iint_lock and then iint_lock->iint should be fine, but the logic
> > needs to be inverted. ima_inode_get() should return the existing iint, if it
> > exists, or allocate the memory.
>
> Right, I checked the patches I'm about to send, they do that.
I think Paul's point was that we should not create a iint anyway, if
the inode does not have a security blob. That check I think it is fine
to keep.
Roberto
