[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSt+c6QksHef=kx3dN_ouVZG0_a6FERzXs2-uzKmyE_zg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 20:44:38 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Linux Security Module list
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] LSM: general protection fault in legacy_parse_param
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:46 PM James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> > The usual LSM hook "bail on fail" scheme doesn't work for cases where
> > a security module may return an error code indicating that it does not
> > recognize an input. In this particular case Smack sees a mount option
> > that it recognizes, and returns 0. A call to a BPF hook follows, which
> > returns -ENOPARAM, which confuses the caller because Smack has processed
> > its data.
> >
> > The SELinux hook incorrectly returns 1 on success. There was a time
> > when this was correct, however the current expectation is that it
> > return 0 on success. This is repaired.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
>
>
> Acked-by: James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>
Looks good to me too, thanks Casey. Since James' already ACK'd it, I
went ahead and pulled this into selinux/next.
> > ---
> > security/security.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 5 ++---
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > index 3d4eb474f35b..e649c8691be2 100644
> > --- a/security/security.c
> > +++ b/security/security.c
> > @@ -884,9 +884,22 @@ int security_fs_context_dup(struct fs_context *fc, struct
> > fs_context *src_fc)
> > return call_int_hook(fs_context_dup, 0, fc, src_fc);
> > }
> >
> > -int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct
> > fs_parameter *param)
> > +int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc,
> > + struct fs_parameter *param)
> > {
> > - return call_int_hook(fs_context_parse_param, -ENOPARAM, fc, param);
> > + struct security_hook_list *hp;
> > + int trc;
> > + int rc = -ENOPARAM;
> > +
> > + hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.fs_context_parse_param,
> > + list) {
> > + trc = hp->hook.fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
> > + if (trc == 0)
> > + rc = 0;
> > + else if (trc != -ENOPARAM)
> > + return trc;
> > + }
> > + return rc;
> > }
> >
> > int security_sb_alloc(struct super_block *sb)
> > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > index 5b6895e4fc29..371f67a37f9a 100644
> > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> > @@ -2860,10 +2860,9 @@ static int selinux_fs_context_parse_param(struct
> > fs_context *fc,
> > return opt;
> >
> > rc = selinux_add_opt(opt, param->string, &fc->security);
> > - if (!rc) {
> > + if (!rc)
> > param->string = NULL;
> > - rc = 1;
> > - }
> > +
> > return rc;
> > }
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists