linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selinux: Add __GFP_NOWARN to allocation at str

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:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:28:46 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     peter.enderborg@...y.com
Cc:     penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
        syzbot+ac488b9811036cea7ea0@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: Add __GFP_NOWARN to allocation at str_read()

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:12 AM peter enderborg
<peter.enderborg@...y.com> wrote:
> On 09/13/2018 08:26 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2018/09/13 12:02, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:43 PM Tetsuo Handa
> >> <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> >>> syzbot is hitting warning at str_read() [1] because len parameter can
> >>> become larger than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. We don't need to emit warning for
> >>> this case.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=7f2f5aad79ea8663c296a2eedb81978401a908f0
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> >>> Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+ac488b9811036cea7ea0@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> >>> index e9394e7..f4eadd3 100644
> >>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> >>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> >>> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ static int str_read(char **strp, gfp_t flags, void *fp, u32 len)
> >>>         if ((len == 0) || (len == (u32)-1))
> >>>                 return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>> -       str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags);
> >>> +       str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
> >>>         if (!str)
> >>>                 return -ENOMEM;
> >> Thanks for the patch.
> >>
> >> My eyes are starting to glaze over a bit chasing down all of the
> >> different kmalloc() code paths trying to ensure that this always does
> >> the right thing based on size of the allocation and the different slab
> >> allocators ... are we sure that this will always return NULL when (len
> >> + 1) is greater than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE for the different slab allocator
> >> configurations?
> >>
> > Yes, for (len + 1) cannot become 0 (which causes kmalloc() to return
> > ZERO_SIZE_PTR) due to (len == (u32)-1) check above.
> >
> > The only concern would be whether you want allocation failure messages.
> > I assumed you don't need it because we are returning -ENOMEM to the caller.
> >
> Would it not be better with
>
>     char *str;
>
>     if ((len == 0) || (len == (u32)-1) || (len >= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE))
>         return -EINVAL;
>
>     str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags);
>     if (!str)
>         return -ENOMEM;

As long as it's safe, I'd rather leave the maximum allocation limit as
a kmalloc internal and let kmalloc return NULL if we try too large of
an allocation.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com