netdev - Re: [PATCH] sctp: fix association labeling in the duplicate COOKIE-ECHO case

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: <a769ce9fc949c03f91a4ee1d1cc6ebf6@paul-moore.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:29:14 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>, Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: fix association labeling in the duplicate  COOKIE-ECHO case

On Aug 26, 2024 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> sctp_sf_do_5_2_4_dupcook() currently calls security_sctp_assoc_request()
> on new_asoc, but as it turns out, this association is always discarded
> and the LSM labels never get into the final association (asoc).
> 
> This can be reproduced by having two SCTP endpoints try to initiate an
> association with each other at approximately the same time and then peel
> off the association into a new socket, which exposes the unitialized
> labels and triggers SELinux denials.
> 
> Fix it by calling security_sctp_assoc_request() on asoc instead of
> new_asoc. Xin Long also suggested limit calling the hook only to cases
> A, B, and D, since in cases C and E the COOKIE ECHO chunk is discarded
> and the association doesn't enter the ESTABLISHED state, so rectify that
> as well.
> 
> One related caveat with SELinux and peer labeling: When an SCTP
> connection is set up simultaneously in this way, we will end up with an
> association that is initialized with security_sctp_assoc_request() on
> both sides, so the MLS component of the security context of the
> association will get swapped between the peers, instead of just one side
> setting it to the other's MLS component. However, at that point
> security_sctp_assoc_request() had already been called on both sides in
> sctp_sf_do_unexpected_init() (on a temporary association) and thus if
> the exchange didn't fail before due to MLS, it won't fail now either
> (most likely both endpoints have the same MLS range).
> 
> Tested by:
>  - reproducer from https://src.fedoraproject.org/tests/selinux/pull-request/530
>  - selinux-testsuite (https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite/)
>  - sctp-tests (https://github.com/sctp/sctp-tests) - no tests failed
>    that wouldn't fail also without the patch applied
> 
> Fixes: c081d53f97a1 ("security: pass asoc to sctp_assoc_request and sctp_sk_clone")
> Suggested-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> ---
>  net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> (LSM/SELinux)

--
paul-moore.com