linux-kernel - Re: NULL pointer dereference in selinux_ip_postroute

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:	Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:59 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	john.johansen@...onical.com
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in selinux_ip_postroute_compat

On Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:32:52 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 22:09 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:59 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > Seems wrong.  We shouldn't ever need ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY in core
> > > code.
> > 
> > Sure but it seems include file misses an accessor for this.
> > 
> > We could add it on a future cleanup patch, as Paul mentioned.
> 
> I cooked following patch.
> But smack/smack_lsm.c makes a reference to
> smk_of_current()... so it seems we are in a hole...
> 
> It makes little sense to me to have any kind of security on this
> internal sockets.
> 
> Maybe selinux should not crash if sk->sk_security is NULL ?

I realize our last emails probably passed each other mid-flight, but hopefully 
it explains why we can't just pass packets when sk->sk_security is NULL.

Regardless, some quick comments below ...

> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index 6c77f63..459eca6 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -4289,10 +4289,13 @@ out:
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> -static int selinux_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int family, ...
> +static int selinux_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int family, ...
>  {
>  	struct sk_security_struct *sksec;
> 
> +	if (check && sk->sk_security)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	sksec = kzalloc(sizeof(*sksec), priority);
>  	if (!sksec)
>  		return -ENOMEM;

I think I might replace the "check" boolean with a "kern/kernel" boolean so 
that in addition to the allocation we can also initialize the socket to 
SECINITSID_KERNEL/kernel_t here in the case when the boolean is set.  The only 
place that would set the boolean to true would be ip_send_unicast_reply(), all 
other callers would set it to false.

> diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> index 8221514..8965cf1 100644
> --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c
> @@ -1754,11 +1754,14 @@ static void smack_task_to_inode(struct task_struct
> *p, struct inode *inode) *
>   * Returns 0 on success, -ENOMEM is there's no memory
>   */
> -static int smack_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int family, gfp_t
> gfp_flags) +static int smack_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int family,
> gfp_t gfp_flags, bool check) {
>  	char *csp = smk_of_current();
>  	struct socket_smack *ssp;
> 
> +	if (check && sk->sk_security)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	ssp = kzalloc(sizeof(struct socket_smack), gfp_flags);
>  	if (ssp == NULL)
>  		return -ENOMEM;

In the case of Smack, when the kernel boolean is true I think the right 
solution is to use smack_net_ambient.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
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/