linux-kernel - Re: [Bug] WARNING: zero-size vmalloc in sel_write

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]

Message-ID: <CAJ2a_DcSurcF5_G-DjXL_0X=utasy2y8oJ_ywCms-Qhyy6GORQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:11:19 +0100
From: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Sam Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	"xrivendell7@...il.com" <xrivendell7@...il.com>, syzkaller@...glegroups.com, selinux@...r.kernel.org, 
	omosnace@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Bug] WARNING: zero-size vmalloc in sel_write_load

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 20:19, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 9:08 AM Sam Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear developers and maintainers,
> >
> > We encountered a warning in function sel_write_load(). It is tested on
> > kernel 6.8.0-rc7. Bug report is listed below.
> >
> > ```
> > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 8109 at mm/vmalloc.c:3247
> > __vmalloc_node_range+0x10a0/0x1490 mm/vmalloc.c:3247
> > Modules linked in:
> > CPU: 1 PID: 8109 Comm: syz-executor370 Not tainted 6.7.0-rc7 #1
> > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014
> > RIP: 0010:__vmalloc_node_range+0x10a0/0x1490 mm/vmalloc.c:3247
> > Code: 65 48 2b 04 25 28 00 00 00 0f 85 98 02 00 00 48 81 c4 70 01 00
> > 00 4c 89 e0 5b 5d 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f c3 e8 71 43 b7 ff 90 <0f> 0b
> > 90 45 31 e4 eb a1 e8 63 43 b7 ff 48 8b 4c 24 40 31 f6 45 31
> > RSP: 0018:ffffc90002adf9c0 EFLAGS: 00010293
> > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: dffffc0000000000 RCX: ffffffff81cdc194
> > RDX: ffff888022124ec0 RSI: ffffffff81cdd16f RDI: 0000000000000007
> > RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000007 R09: 0000000000000000
> > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888107373a48
> > R13: dffffc0000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffc90002adfec8
> > FS:  00005555560953c0(0000) GS:ffff888135c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > CR2: 0000000020000010 CR3: 000000010503d000 CR4: 0000000000750ef0
> > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > PKRU: 55555554
> > Call Trace:
> >  <TASK>
> >  __vmalloc_node mm/vmalloc.c:3385 [inline]
> >  vmalloc+0x6b/0x80 mm/vmalloc.c:3418
> >  sel_write_load+0x27f/0x19d0 security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:603
> >  vfs_write+0x2a9/0xd80 fs/read_write.c:582
> >  ksys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:699 [inline]
> >  __do_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:709 [inline]
> >  __se_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:706 [inline]
> >  __x64_sys_pwrite64+0x1f3/0x250 fs/read_write.c:706
> >  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
> >  do_syscall_64+0x40/0x110 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
> >  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
> > RIP: 0033:0x7f40e7728f8d
> > Code: 28 c3 e8 46 1e 00 00 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89 f8 48
> > 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d
> > 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 b8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > RSP: 002b:00007fff5bf39508 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000012
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007fff5bf39708 RCX: 00007f40e7728f8d
> > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007fff5bf39708
> > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000001
> > R13: 00007fff5bf396f8 R14: 00007f40e77a6530 R15: 0000000000000001
> >  </TASK>
> > ```
> >
> > The cause of this bug is that in sel_write_load(), parameter "count"
> > is controlled by user, which could be zero. It is passed to vmalloc()
> > as an argument.
> >
> > If you have any questions, please contact us.
> > Reported by: Yue Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com>
> > Reported by: xingwei lee <xrivendell7@...il.com>
>
> Everything appears to be working as expected, vmalloc() caught the
> zero-length allocation request, emitted the warning, returned NULL to
> sel_write_load(), and sel_write_load() handled the error condition
> triggered by vmalloc(0) returning NULL.  Did you see any unexpected
> behavior beyond this warning message above?

Probably because kernel warnings should not be reachable from
userspace - although in this case loading a policy is a highly
privileged operation - , because they mostly signal incorrect internal
state and can lead with the enabled option of panic_on_warn to system
halts.

I have two suggestions:

I. Can the documentation of vmalloc() mention that passing a size of 0
is discouraged?

II. Can the global SELinux state mutex in sel_write_load() be acquired
after the avc permission check, so that rouge processes with write
access to /load but not granted security { load_policy } can not pound
on that mutex?

>
> --
> paul-moore.com
>