Date:   Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:37:43 -0800
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] general protection fault in sock_has_perm

On 1/19/2018 9:06 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com> wrote:
>> On 01/18/2018 02:36 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com> wrote:
>>>> general protection fault: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
>>>> CPU: 1 PID: 14233 Comm: syz-executor2 Not tainted 4.4.112-g5f6325b #28
>>>> . . .
>>>> [<ffffffff81b6a19d>] selinux_socket_setsockopt+0x4d/0x80
>>>> security/selinux/hooks.c:4338
>>>> [<ffffffff81b4873d>] security_socket_setsockopt+0x7d/0xb0
>>>> security/security.c:1257
>>>> [<ffffffff82df1ac8>] SYSC_setsockopt net/socket.c:1757 [inline]
>>>> [<ffffffff82df1ac8>] SyS_setsockopt+0xe8/0x250 net/socket.c:1746
>>>> [<ffffffff83776499>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x16/0x92
>>>> Code: c2 42 9b b6 81 be 01 00 00 00 48 c7 c7 a0 cb 2b 84 e8
>>>> f7 2f 6d ff 49 8d 7d 10 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 48 89
>>>> fa 48 c1 ea 03 <0f> b6 04 02 84 c0 74 08 3c 03 0f 8e 83 01 00
>>>> 00 41 8b 75 10 31
>>>> RIP  [<ffffffff81b69b7e>] sock_has_perm+0x1fe/0x3e0
>>>> security/selinux/hooks.c:4069
>>>> RSP <ffff8800b5957ce0>
>>>> ---[ end trace 7b5aaf788fef6174 ]---
>>>>
>>>> In the absence of commit a4298e4522d6 ("net: add SOCK_RCU_FREE socket
>>>> flag") and all the associated infrastructure changes to take advantage
>>>> of a RCU grace period before freeing, there is a heightened
>>>> possibility that a security check is performed while an ill-timed
>>>> setsockopt call races in from user space.  It then is prudent to null
>>>> check sk_security, and if the case, reject the permissions.
>>>>
>>>> This adjustment is orthogonal to infrastructure improvements that may
>>>> nullify the needed check, but should be added as good code hygiene.
>>> I'm skeptical that this is the full solution for systems that lack the
>>> SOCK_RCU_FREE protection.  Is this really limited to just
>>> setsockopt()?
>> Maybe overstepped in my analysis and assumptions?
>>
>> This is a result of a fuzzer hitting an android 4.4 KASAN kernel. We (so
>> far) have _not_ seen this with an android 4.9 KASAN kernel (which has the
>> SOCK_RCU_FREE adjustments). There is no standalone duplication or PoC
>> _except_ via the fuzzer. The rest of the statements stands based on this
>> tidbit (statements of general good code hygiene, not 100% sure SOCK_RCU_FREE
>> usage is completely covered, KISS solution etc).
>>
>> To be honest, yes, this may be a layer in the onion (swat this NULL check
>> does not by itself solve the _problem_), I'd prefer kernel continuing on in
>> a rational manner rather than panic ... and I have a gut feeling this could
>> be a gratuitous NULL check if all the bugs in the network layer have been
>> solved <that may be sarcasm, I can not tell>. Programming to solve a problem
>> with one's gut is not a good practice, but hygiene is. This is 10
>> characters, and an estimated 1.2ns of added hygiene.
>>
>> No, I do not think this is limited to setsockopt, but would be willing to
>> believe a multithreaded attack of any socket functions or ioctl would drop
>> down to the check with sock_has_perm at possibly the wrong time in socket
>> teardown.
> I'm not necessarily opposed to adding additional safety checks, if
> warranted, but I am opposed to adding a single check and declaring
> mission accomplished when there is a suspicion that additional checks
> may be needed.
>
> Perhaps in this particular case it really is only setsockopt(), but
> from what I can tell from your comments and the SOCK_RCU_FREE commit
> message it would appear that there is a race condition here between a
> socket's lifetime and its visibility to userspace.  Assuming this is
> the core problem you are trying to workaround with this patch, I
> suspect that more than just the SELinux/LSM hook for setsockopt() is
> affected; before merging this patch I would like to see a better
> investigation into all the socket related SELinux/LSM hooks to see if
> they suffer from the same problem.

There have been a few cases where Smack has been affected
in similar ways outside of setsockopt(). If there's a problem
here there's likely to be a problem in Smack that presents
itself in a very different way.

> For example, if we stick with the setsockopt() syscall and the
> SELinux/LSM hook we can see that there are two functions which access
> the socket struct: sock_has_perm() and
> selinux_netlbl_socket_setsockopt().  While you did add the safety
> check to sock_has_perm() you neglected to add a check to
> selinux_netlbl_socket_setsockopt(), I'm guessing because the Android
> kernels probably do not enable CONFIG_NETLABEL.  Looking beyond
> setsockopt() into other socket related syscalls I see a number of
> hooks which should have similar protections.
>
> When you see problems like this, please do the investigation to make
> sure you are fixing everything like it and not just the one instance
> that blew up.
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists