netdev - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -v2 -rc4] Smack: Respect 'unlabeled' netlabel mode

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]

Date:	Fri, 30 May 2008 16:25:00 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
Cc:	casey@...aufler-ca.com, paul.moore@...com,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX -v2 -rc4] Smack: Respect 'unlabeled' netlabel
 mode

On Sat, 31 May 2008 02:57:51 +0300
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com> wrote:

> +		mutex_lock(&smack_ambient_lock);
> +		nlsp->domain = kstrdup(smack_net_ambient, GFP_ATOMIC);
> +		mutex_unlock(&smack_ambient_lock);

no no no no no.  And no.

GFP_ATOMIC is *unreliable*.  Using it in a "security" feature is a bug
- if it fails, the feature isn't secure any more.

Failing to check the kmalloc() return value might be a bug.

If we _need_ GFP_ATOMIC here then taking a mutex in a cannot-sleep
context is a bug.

The patch adds a kmalloc but doesn't add a kfree.  Is it leaky?

Finally, why is there a need to take a lock around a single store
instruction?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html