linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the vfs tree

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: <20151231043019.GD9938@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:30:19 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the vfs tree

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 03:24:53PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   3bc8f29b149e ("new helper: memdup_user_nul()")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   38d859f991f3 ("IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times")
> 
> from the security tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (hopefully, see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> (no action is required).
 
> + 	res = mutex_lock_interruptible(&ima_write_mutex);
> + 	if (res)
> + 		return res;
>   
>   	if (datalen >= PAGE_SIZE)
>   		datalen = PAGE_SIZE - 1;
>   
>   	/* No partial writes. */
> + 	result = -EINVAL;
>   	if (*ppos != 0)
> - 		return -EINVAL;
> + 		goto out;
>   
>  -	result = -ENOMEM;
>  -	data = kmalloc(datalen + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
>  -	if (!data)
>  -		goto out;
>  -
>  -	*(data + datalen) = '\0';
>  -
>  -	result = -EFAULT;
>  -	if (copy_from_user(data, buf, datalen))
>  +	data = memdup_user_nul(buf, datalen);
> - 	if (IS_ERR(data))
> - 		return PTR_ERR(data);
> ++	if (IS_ERR(data)) {
> ++		result = PTR_ERR(data);
> + 		goto out;
> ++	}

Why do it in this order?  With or without opencoding memdup_user_nul(),
what's the point of taking the mutex before copying the data from
userland?  All it achieves is holding it longer, over the area that
needs no exclusion whatsoever.
--
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/