On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:47 PM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 06:04:53PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:25 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > In [see "Fixes:"] I missed the fact that str_read() may give back an
> > > allocated pointer even if it returns an error, causing a potential
> > > memory leak in filename_trans_read_one(). Fix this by making the
> > > function free the allocated string whenever it returns a non-zero value,
> > > which also makes its behavior more obvious and prevents repeating the
> > > same mistake in the future.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1461665 ("Resource leaks")
> > > Fixes: c3a276111ea2 ("selinux: optimize storage of filename transitions")
> > > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 8 ++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > I just merged this into selinux/stable-5.7 and assuming all goes well
> > in testing I'll send this up to Linus later this week. Thanks Ondrej.
> >
> > I also want to add my thanks to the "coverity bot", thanks Kees. Are
> > you only running this only on Linus tree? If it's open to other trees
> > it might be nice to get the selinux/next branch into the automated
> > testing.
>
> It's being run on linux-next. The free coverity scanner barely has the
> resources is keep up with one tree, so I just feed it -next. They were
> kind enough to let us upload daily now, so I've been trying to feed the
> emailed reports back. It's all just the tip of the iceberg, of course.
Ah, okay, thanks. I had wondered about doing regular coverity runs
for the SELinux/audit kernel code but was scared off by the limits; it
looks like that wasn't an unwarranted fear.
Regardless, thanks for setting this up and running it on linux-next.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
