[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f7151722-6450-7efd-1e3d-e31245dc3da2@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 21:34:53 +0800
From: xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
CC: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>,
<michalorzel.eng@...il.com>, Austin Kim <austin.kim@....com>,
SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] selinux: Fix memleak in security_read_state_kernel
在 2022/6/14 20:57, Ondrej Mosnacek 写道:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 4:02 PM Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com> wrote:
>> In this function, it directly returns the result of __security_read_policy
>> without freeing the allocated memory in *data, cause memory leak issue,
>> so free the memory if __security_read_policy failed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> security/selinux/ss/services.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> index 69b2734311a6..fe5fcf571c56 100644
>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> @@ -4048,6 +4048,7 @@ int security_read_policy(struct selinux_state *state,
>> int security_read_state_kernel(struct selinux_state *state,
>> void **data, size_t *len)
>> {
>> + int err;
>> struct selinux_policy *policy;
>>
>> policy = rcu_dereference_protected(
>> @@ -4060,5 +4061,11 @@ int security_read_state_kernel(struct selinux_state *state,
>> if (!*data)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - return __security_read_policy(policy, *data, len);
>> + err = __security_read_policy(policy, *data, len);
>> + if (err) {
>> + vfree(*data);
>> + *data = NULL;
>> + *len = 0;
>> + }
>> + return err;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
> security_read_policy() defined a few lines above has the same pattern
> (just with vmalloc_user() in place of vmalloc()). Would you like to
> send another patch to fix that function as well?
No problem, patch already sent.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists