linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: security xattr setting on inode creation

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, 27 Feb 2012 14:46:02 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...el.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: security xattr setting on inode creation

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:

> +/*
> + * Callback for security_inode_init_security() for acquiring xattrs.
> + */
> +static int shmem_initxattrs(struct inode *inode,
> +			    const struct xattr *xattr_array,
> +			    void *fs_info)
> +{
> +	struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> +	const struct xattr *xattr;
> +	struct shmem_xattr *new_xattr;
> +	size_t len;
> +
> +	for (xattr = xattr_array; xattr->name != NULL; xattr++) {
> +		new_xattr = shmem_xattr_alloc(xattr->value, xattr->value_len);
> +		if (!new_xattr)
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +		len = strlen(xattr->name) + 1;
> +		new_xattr->name = kmalloc(XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN + len,
> +					  GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (!new_xattr->name) {
> +			kfree(new_xattr);
> +			return -ENOMEM;
> +		}
> +
> +		memcpy(new_xattr->name, XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX,
> +		       XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN);
> +		memcpy(new_xattr->name + XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN,
> +		       xattr->name, len);
> +
> +		spin_lock(&info->lock);
> +		list_add(&new_xattr->list, &info->xattr_list);
> +		spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

So if there's a kmalloc failure partway through the array, we leave a
partially xattrified inode in place.

Are we sure this is OK?
--
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/