From: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit abec3d015fdfb7c63105c7e1c956188bf381aa55 ] Since userfaultfd doesn't implement a write operation, it is more appropriate to open it read-only. When userfaultfds are opened read-write like it is now, and such fd is passed from one process to another, SELinux will check both read and write permissions for the target process, even though it can't actually do any write operation on the fd later. Inspired by the following bug report, which has hit the SELinux scenario described above: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974559 Reported-by: Robert O'Callahan <roc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fixes: 86039bd3b4e6 ("userfaultfd: add new syscall to provide memory externalization") Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Christian Brauner (Microsoft) <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/userfaultfd.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c index 22bf14ab2d16..b56e8e31d967 100644 --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c @@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ static int resolve_userfault_fork(struct userfaultfd_ctx *new, int fd; fd = anon_inode_getfd_secure("[userfaultfd]", &userfaultfd_fops, new, - O_RDWR | (new->flags & UFFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS), inode); + O_RDONLY | (new->flags & UFFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS), inode); if (fd < 0) return fd; @@ -2097,7 +2097,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(userfaultfd, int, flags) mmgrab(ctx->mm); fd = anon_inode_getfd_secure("[userfaultfd]", &userfaultfd_fops, ctx, - O_RDWR | (flags & UFFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS), NULL); + O_RDONLY | (flags & UFFD_SHARED_FCNTL_FLAGS), NULL); if (fd < 0) { mmdrop(ctx->mm); kmem_cache_free(userfaultfd_ctx_cachep, ctx); -- 2.35.1
