On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:42:04 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> [added paul] EOM
>
> On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 14:35 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > ===================================================
> >
> > [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > security/selinux/netnode.c:193 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without
> > protection!
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> >
> > 1 lock held by a.out/2018:
> > #0: (sel_netnode_lock){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff81212ab7>]
> > sel_netnode_sid+0x9e/0x267
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > Pid: 2018, comm: a.out Not tainted 2.6.39-rc4+ #3
> >
> > Call Trace:
> > [<ffffffff81084908>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xa8/0xb0
> > [<ffffffff81212c0d>] sel_netnode_sid+0x1f4/0x267
> > [<ffffffff81212a19>] ? sel_netnode_find+0xe3/0xe3
> > [<ffffffff8120d564>] selinux_socket_bind+0x1cf/0x26f
> > [<ffffffff81086c08>] ? lock_release+0x181/0x18e
> > [<ffffffff81100db8>] ? might_fault+0xa5/0xac
> > [<ffffffff81100d6f>] ? might_fault+0x5c/0xac
> > [<ffffffff812073f1>] security_socket_bind+0x16/0x18
> > [<ffffffff813ee0e9>] sys_bind+0x73/0xcf
> > [<ffffffff814c5d7a>] ? sysret_check+0x2e/0x69
> > [<ffffffff810870cf>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x10b/0x12f
> > [<ffffffff810a9efb>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x11c/0x148
> > [<ffffffff81255e2e>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> > [<ffffffff814c5d42>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >
> > something like this perhaps ?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/netnode.c b/security/selinux/netnode.c
> > index 65ebfe9..d0c38ba 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/netnode.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/netnode.c
> > @@ -188,9 +188,11 @@ static void sel_netnode_insert(struct sel_netnode
> > *node)
> >
> > list_add_rcu(&node->list, &sel_netnode_hash[idx].list);
> > if (sel_netnode_hash[idx].size == SEL_NETNODE_HASH_BKT_LIMIT) {
> >
> > struct sel_netnode *tail;
> >
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> >
> > tail = list_entry(
> >
> > rcu_dereference(sel_netnode_hash[idx].list.prev),
> > struct sel_netnode, list);
> >
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > list_del_rcu(&tail->list);
> > call_rcu(&tail->rcu, sel_netnode_free);
> >
> > } else
[Ooops, forgot to hit reply-all on the first attempt]
Hmm, I think the correct fix might be to just remove the rcu_dereference()
call since this is protected by a spin lock (see sel_netnode_sid_slow()). I
may be wrong, but I thought rcu locks/derefs were not needed when a spin lock
was held, yes?
Regardless of the fix, the same thing should probably be done to the
sel_netport_* versions of these functions.
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
