Re: [PATCH v3] cred: Propagate security_prepare_creds() error code

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

 



Hi Eric,

On 6/13/22 12:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Frederick Lawler <fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

While experimenting with the security_prepare_creds() LSM hook, we
noticed that our EPERM error code was not propagated up the callstack.
Instead ENOMEM is always returned.  As a result, some tools may send a
confusing error message to the user:

$ unshare -rU
unshare: unshare failed: Cannot allocate memory

A user would think that the system didn't have enough memory, when
instead the action was denied.

This problem occurs because prepare_creds() and prepare_kernel_cred()
return NULL when security_prepare_creds() returns an error code. Later,
functions calling prepare_creds() and prepare_kernel_cred() return
ENOMEM because they assume that a NULL meant there was no memory
allocated.

Fix this by propagating an error code from security_prepare_creds() up
the callstack.

Why would it make sense for security_prepare_creds to return an error
code other than ENOMEM?
 > That seems a bit of a violation of what that function is supposed to do


The API allows LSM authors to decide what error code is returned from the cred_prepare hook. security_task_alloc() is a similar hook, and has its return code propagated.

I'm proposing we follow security_task_allocs() pattern, and add visibility for failure cases in prepare_creds().

I have probably missed a very interesting discussion where that was
mentioned but I don't see link to the discussion or anything explaining
why we want to do that in this change.


AFAIK, this is the start of the discussion.

Eric






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

  Powered by Linux