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 09:12:04 +0200
From:   peter enderborg <peter.enderborg@...y.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
CC:     <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 <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: Add __GFP_NOWARN to allocation at str_read()

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;