[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231216041116.GA78578@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:11:16 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: "T. Williams" <tdwilliamsiv@...il.com>
Cc: jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fixing userspace memory dereference in security.c
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 07:03:56PM -0400, T. Williams wrote:
> security/security.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 9ffa9e9c5c55..7c41b5d732ab 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -1737,6 +1737,8 @@ int security_kernel_read_file(struct file *file, enum
> kernel_read_file_id id,
> int ret;
>
> ret = call_int_hook(kernel_read_file, 0, file, id, contents);
> + if (ret > 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> return ima_read_file(file, id, contents);
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> This commit is to fix a userspace address dereference found by
> syzkaller.
> The crash is triggered by passing a file descriptor to an incorrectly
> formed kernel module to finit_module.
>
> Kernel/module.c:4175 : Within the finit_module, info.len is set to the
> return value from kernel_read_file_from_fd. This value is then
> dereferenced by memcmp within module_sig_check from inside load_module.
> The value is 0xb000000 so the kernel dereferences user memory and kernel
> panics.
Hi,
thanks for sending this. For some reason, I can't seem to find this
message-id in lore.kernel.org to see if there were ever any replies.
There is indeed a problem, although I think a more concise explanation
is:
1. security_kernel_read_file() returns any non-zero return value to mean
permission denied
2. kernel_read_file() returns > 0 meaning number of bytes read
3. hen kernel_read_file() gets any non-zero rv from security_kernel_read_file(),
it returns that value unchanged.
Since kernel_read_file() is the only caller of security_kernel_read_file(),
I think your patch is good, except you should also change the comment above
it to read
* Return: Returns 0 if permission is granted, < 0 on error.
Reviewed-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
I think the reason it's not been a practical problem is because while
security_kernel_read_file() will honor a >0 error from an LSM, no
LSM implementation of that hook does that. (Only loadpin and selinux
implement it)
-serge
Powered by blists - more mailing lists