linux-kernel - [PATCH bpf] bpf, lsm: Fix the file

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu,  2 Apr 2020 22:07:51 +0200
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: [PATCH bpf] bpf, lsm: Fix the file_mprotect LSM test.

From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>

The test was previously using an mprotect on the heap memory allocated
using malloc and was expecting the allocation to be always using
sbrk(2). This is, however, not always true and in certain conditions
malloc may end up using anonymous mmaps for heap alloctions. This means
that the following condition that is used in the "lsm/file_mprotect"
program is not sufficent to detect all mprotect calls done on heap
memory:

	is_heap = (vma->vm_start >= vma->vm_mm->start_brk &&
		   vma->vm_end <= vma->vm_mm->brk);

The test is updated to use an mprotect on memory allocated on the stack.
While this would result in the splitting of the vma, this happens only
after the security_file_mprotect hook. So, the condition used in the BPF
program holds true.

Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Fixes: 03e54f100d57 ("bpf: lsm: Add selftests for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM")
---
 .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c        | 18 +++++++++---------
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c        |  8 ++++----
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
index 1e4c258de09d..b17eb2045c1d 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c
@@ -15,7 +15,10 @@
 
 char *CMD_ARGS[] = {"true", NULL};
 
-int heap_mprotect(void)
+#define GET_PAGE_ADDR(ADDR, PAGE_SIZE)					\
+	(char *)(((unsigned long) (ADDR + PAGE_SIZE)) & ~(PAGE_SIZE-1))
+
+int stack_mprotect(void)
 {
 	void *buf;
 	long sz;
@@ -25,12 +28,9 @@ int heap_mprotect(void)
 	if (sz < 0)
 		return sz;
 
-	buf = memalign(sz, 2 * sz);
-	if (buf == NULL)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-
-	ret = mprotect(buf, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC);
-	free(buf);
+	buf = alloca(sz * 3);
+	ret = mprotect(GET_PAGE_ADDR(buf, sz), sz,
+		       PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC);
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ void test_test_lsm(void)
 
 	skel->bss->monitored_pid = getpid();
 
-	err = heap_mprotect();
-	if (CHECK(errno != EPERM, "heap_mprotect", "want errno=EPERM, got %d\n",
+	err = stack_mprotect();
+	if (CHECK(errno != EPERM, "stack_mprotect", "want err=EPERM, got %d\n",
 		  errno))
 		goto close_prog;
 
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
index a4e3c223028d..b4598d4bc4f7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
@@ -23,12 +23,12 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		return ret;
 
 	__u32 pid = bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32;
-	int is_heap = 0;
+	int is_stack = 0;
 
-	is_heap = (vma->vm_start >= vma->vm_mm->start_brk &&
-		   vma->vm_end <= vma->vm_mm->brk);
+	is_stack = (vma->vm_start <= vma->vm_mm->start_stack &&
+		    vma->vm_end >= vma->vm_mm->start_stack);
 
-	if (is_heap && monitored_pid == pid) {
+	if (is_stack && monitored_pid == pid) {
 		mprotect_count++;
 		ret = -EPERM;
 	}
-- 
2.20.1