On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:52 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot > > > > <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > > > >> > > > >> syzbot found the following issue on: > > > >> > > > >> HEAD commit: 62fb9874 Linux 5.13 > > > >> git tree: upstream > > > >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000 > > > >> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58 > > > >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943 > > > >> compiler: Debian clang version 11.0.1-2 > > > >> > > > >> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet. > > > >> > > > >> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > > > >> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue > > > > > > This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by > > > David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there > > > may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced > > > by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose. > > > > > > > The crash was triggered by this test case: > > > > > > > > 21:55:33 executing program 1: > > > > r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1) > > > > fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot', > > > > &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0) > > > > > > > > And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param(): > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691 > > > > > > > > But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue: > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919 > > > > +So selinux maintainers as well. > > > > > > > >> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN > > > >> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007] > > > >> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0 > > > >> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011 > > > >> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054 > > > >> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db > > > >> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246 > > > >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000 > > > >> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000 > > > >> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95 > > > >> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000 > > > >> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c > > > >> FS: 00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > >> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > >> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0 > > > >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > > > >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > > > >> Call Trace: > > > >> legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537 > > > >> vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117 > > > > It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's > > look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem > > is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks. In both > > the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0 > > (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I > > don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are > > not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from > > vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param(): > > > > Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 : > > > > ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param); > > if (ret != -ENOPARAM) > > /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so > > * don't pass to the FS. > > */ > > return ret; > > > > if (fc->ops->parse_param) { > > ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param); > > if (ret != -ENOPARAM) > > return ret; > > } > > Hi Paul, > > You are right. > I almost connected the dots, but not exactly. > Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in > smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and > takes ownership of the string). > > I don't see how the crash happened... FWIW, I poked around a bit too and couldn't see anything obvious either, but I can't pretend to know as much about the VFS layer as the VFS folks. Hopefully they might have better luck. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
