linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 05:57:05 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Version 8 (2.6.23) Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel

On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:40PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:

At random:

> +static int smack_netlabel(struct sock *sk)
> +{
> +	static int initialized;
> +	struct socket_smack *ssp = sk->sk_security;
> +	struct netlbl_lsm_secattr secattr;
> +	int rc = 0;
> +
> +	if (!initialized) {
> +		smk_cipso_doi();
> +		initialized = 1;
> +	}

And just what happens if another task calls the same while we are
blocked on allocation in smk_cipso_doi()?

Another problem is your handling of smk_known - you add to head under
mutex; fine.  However, you read without one _and_ have no barriers
in initializing new list entries.

Think what happens if CPU1 adds to list and CPU2 sees write to smk_known
*before* it sees write to ->smk_next.  We see a single-element list and
we'll be lucky if that single entry won't be FUBAR.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/