Re: [PATCH net] selinux: do not report error on connect(AF_UNSPEC)

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

 



On 5/8/19 2:27 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 02:13:17PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 5/8/19 2:12 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 5/8/19 9:32 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
calling connect(AF_UNSPEC) on an already connected TCP socket is an
established way to disconnect() such socket. After commit 68741a8adab9
("selinux: Fix ltp test connect-syscall failure") it no longer works
and, in the above scenario connect() fails with EAFNOSUPPORT.

Fix the above falling back to the generic/old code when the address
family
is not AF_INET{4,6}, but leave the SCTP code path untouched, as it has
specific constraints.

Fixes: 68741a8adab9 ("selinux: Fix ltp test connect-syscall failure")
Reported-by: Tom Deseyn <tdeseyn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
   security/selinux/hooks.c | 8 ++++----
   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
index c61787b15f27..d82b87c16b0a 100644
--- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
+++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
@@ -4649,7 +4649,7 @@ static int
selinux_socket_connect_helper(struct socket *sock,
           struct lsm_network_audit net = {0,};
           struct sockaddr_in *addr4 = NULL;
           struct sockaddr_in6 *addr6 = NULL;
-        unsigned short snum;
+        unsigned short snum = 0;
           u32 sid, perm;
           /* sctp_connectx(3) calls via selinux_sctp_bind_connect()
@@ -4674,12 +4674,12 @@ static int
selinux_socket_connect_helper(struct socket *sock,
               break;
           default:
               /* Note that SCTP services expect -EINVAL, whereas
-             * others expect -EAFNOSUPPORT.
+             * others must handle this at the protocol level:
+             * connect(AF_UNSPEC) on a connected socket is
+             * a documented way disconnect the socket.
                */
               if (sksec->sclass == SECCLASS_SCTP_SOCKET)
                   return -EINVAL;
-            else
-                return -EAFNOSUPPORT;

I think we need to return 0 here.  Otherwise, we'll fall through with an
uninitialized snum, triggering a random/bogus permission check.

Sorry, I see that you initialize snum above.  Nonetheless, I think the
correct behavior here is to skip the check since this is a disconnect, not a
connect.

Skipping the check would make it less controllable. So should it
somehow re-use shutdown() stuff? It gets very confusing, and after
all, it still is, in essence, a connect() syscall.

The function checks CONNECT permission on entry, before reaching this point. This logic is only in preparation for a further check (NAME_CONNECT) on the port. In this case, there is no further check to perform and we can just return.




           }
           err = sel_netport_sid(sk->sk_protocol, snum, &sid);







[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux