linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in selinux_inode

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]

Message-ID: <1389283545.15209.59.camel@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 09 Jan 2014 11:05:45 -0500
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in
 selinux_inode_permission()

[adding lsm and selinux]

Am I just crazy, or was this bug discussed (and obviously not fixed)
some time ago?

VFS can still use inodes after security_inode_free_security() was
called...

On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 10:57 -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 10:51 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 10:31:55 -0500
> > Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Didn't Al find this/something very similar.  I really hate this
> > 
> > I'm not involved with the vfs, so I'm unaware of other solutions
> > presented. I just hit this now and solving bugs is where I get a chance
> > to learn about other aspects of the kernel. ;-)
> > 
> > > solution.  Why should every LSM try to understand the intimate
> > > lifetime rules of the parent subsystems?  The real problem is that
> > > inode_free_security() is being called while the inode is still in use.
> > >  While I agree with the assessment, I disagree with the solution.  Let
> > > me try to find where Al and Christoph talked about this....
> > > 
> > 
> > The other obvious solution (but not as trivial to implement) is to call
> > the security_inode_free() and friends (probably __destroy_inode()
> > itself) after a synchronize_rcu().
> > 
> > Perhaps something like this?
> 
> I can't for the life of me find that conversation!  Maybe I'm just
> making it all up...  Usually I forget conversations, not remember ones
> that didn't happen...
> 
> Assuming the VFS guys say that delaying __destroy_inode() is safe like
> that, I like it better.  It also means that this is fixed for all LSMs,
> not just SELinux...
> 
> -Eric
> 
> > 
> > -- Steve
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> > index 4bcdad3..a8f3b88 100644
> > --- a/fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/inode.c
> > @@ -252,16 +252,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__destroy_inode);
> >  static void i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
> >  {
> >  	struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
> > +	__destroy_inode(inode);
> >  	kmem_cache_free(inode_cachep, inode);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
> >  {
> >  	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru));
> > -	__destroy_inode(inode);
> > -	if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
> > +	if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode) {
> > +		__destroy_inode(inode);
> >  		inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);
> > -	else
> > +	} else
> >  		call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, i_callback);
> >  }
> >  
> 


--
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/