linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for 5.4

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:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:01:49 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for 5.4

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:41 AM Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Fix for SafeSetID bug that was introduced in 5.3

So this seems to be a good fix, but the bug itself came from the fact that

    rcu_swap_protected(..)

is so hard to read, and I don't see *why* it's so pointlessly hard to read.

Yes, we have some macros that change their arguments, but they have a
_reason_ to do so (ie they return two different values) and they tend
to be very special in other ways too.

But rcu_swap_protected() has no reason for it's odd semantics.

Looking at that 'handle_policy_update()' function, it's entirely
reasonable to think "pol cannot possibly be NULL". When I looked at
the fix patch, that was my initial reaction too, and it's probably the
reason Jann's commit 03638e62f55f ("LSM: SafeSetID: rewrite userspace
API to atomic updates") had that bug to begin with.

I don't see the original discussion at all, it's not on
Linux-Security-Module for some reason, so I can't tell when/if the
NULL pointer test got deleted.

Anyway, this bug would likely had been avoided if rcu_swap_protected()
just returned the old pointer instead of changing the argument.

There are only a handful or users of that macro, maybe this could be fixed?

Adding some of the RCU parties to the participants..

Also, the commit message for this fix was a mess, I feel. It says
"SafeSetID: Stop releasing uninitialized ruleset", but the ruleset it
releases is perfectly initialized. It just might be NULL because it
doesn't _exist_.

           Linus