netdev - Re: SELinux/IP_PASSSEC regression in 4.13-rcX

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:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:45:54 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: SELinux/IP_PASSSEC regression in 4.13-rcX

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 22:00 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > I'm happy to test this, but if you are curious, you can find the
>> > selinux-testsuite at the link below; the "inet_socket" tests are the
>> > ones relevant to this problem.
>> >
>> > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look.
>
>> > However, I believe there is a problem with this patch, see below.
>
> [...]
>
>> > > -#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
>> > > +#define UDP_SKB_IS_STATELESS 0x80000000
>> > > +
>> > >  static void udp_set_dev_scratch(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> > >  {
>> > > -       struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch;
>> > > +       struct udp_dev_scratch *scratch = udp_skb_scratch(skb);
>> > >
>> > >         BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct udp_dev_scratch) > sizeof(long));
>> >
>> > The BUILD_BUG_ON() assertion no longer appears to be correct with this patch.
>>
>> Nevermind, I just took a closer look at this and realized I made a
>> mistake when applying your patch (had to apply manually for some
>> reason).  I'm building a test kernel now.
>
> Yup, I compile-tested the code, plus some basic sanity checks, so the
> build breakage felt unexpected.
>
> Thanks for testing,

I just did a quick run through the selinux-testsuite and the
regression would appear to be fixed, thanks!  I'm guessing you'll send
this to DaveM so we can get this fixed before v4.13 is released?

Tested-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com