From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 213C830EF80; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765884467; cv=none; b=WUoYmywQBeem3/hFLmrBnyErtCxds4/ODUCnDGbFSoOTKxg9ANYvBGuyt9UrBjyVfL5O6zkwtdkTgLxr8HdTqZH0IKUES1kBdy+2DMxj4v83opc0X7PTz9Z5NHV+wa5vLjO/1QsoDZ23deVZwzRR3oZpxIZX3BM6FGLXHEP2Jrk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765884467; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BR11ZeyCzyaFTlj+0u6DyCnWt6Y0Jl/KXKXrBlT8NUk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=Nq7EYBgbUt873khYTi42YGq8k+1dT/hdulpQ5UFLk6M25YNe4VSsI6dZfCHhnm+Bd7H/2OEfKTQz9UY3fXHEeeTGFQ7drMp0db/mcOF2nxVQBhaOBTnVMbBtoSMrqf6+FVoVislEyeAMBUCyScoF7F6oa6LgQ9/kPQcznMDQOgY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=z/YqDeMx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="z/YqDeMx" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 861B3C16AAE; Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:27:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1765884467; bh=BR11ZeyCzyaFTlj+0u6DyCnWt6Y0Jl/KXKXrBlT8NUk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=z/YqDeMxgwP3yW3g8ji9Lx3Wju7zreFIfhoRbY09+dtZ9OjJU0JYWkGm5aJToQpNM D2b5lZkNjfsIysIaVrYP/z4yANaOyrK3Rul7jbic5iaXTvoEpSAzXFLxdV2f2lO0Zf fT7eLsYXhk4pAHuT3MLPUve36AStqGaumRLo/ieg= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , patches@lists.linux.dev, Zhao Yipeng , Roberto Sassu , Mimi Zohar , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 6.12 201/354] ima: Handle error code returned by ima_filter_rule_match() Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 12:12:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20251216111328.201012868@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.52.0 In-Reply-To: <20251216111320.896758933@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20251216111320.896758933@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.69 X-stable: review X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 6.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Zhao Yipeng [ Upstream commit 738c9738e690f5cea24a3ad6fd2d9a323cf614f6 ] In ima_match_rules(), if ima_filter_rule_match() returns -ENOENT due to the rule being NULL, the function incorrectly skips the 'if (!rc)' check and sets 'result = true'. The LSM rule is considered a match, causing extra files to be measured by IMA. This issue can be reproduced in the following scenario: After unloading the SELinux policy module via 'semodule -d', if an IMA measurement is triggered before ima_lsm_rules is updated, in ima_match_rules(), the first call to ima_filter_rule_match() returns -ESTALE. This causes the code to enter the 'if (rc == -ESTALE && !rule_reinitialized)' block, perform ima_lsm_copy_rule() and retry. In ima_lsm_copy_rule(), since the SELinux module has been removed, the rule becomes NULL, and the second call to ima_filter_rule_match() returns -ENOENT. This bypasses the 'if (!rc)' check and results in a false match. Call trace: selinux_audit_rule_match+0x310/0x3b8 security_audit_rule_match+0x60/0xa0 ima_match_rules+0x2e4/0x4a0 ima_match_policy+0x9c/0x1e8 ima_get_action+0x48/0x60 process_measurement+0xf8/0xa98 ima_bprm_check+0x98/0xd8 security_bprm_check+0x5c/0x78 search_binary_handler+0x6c/0x318 exec_binprm+0x58/0x1b8 bprm_execve+0xb8/0x130 do_execveat_common.isra.0+0x1a8/0x258 __arm64_sys_execve+0x48/0x68 invoke_syscall+0x50/0x128 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xc8/0xf0 do_el0_svc+0x24/0x38 el0_svc+0x44/0x200 el0t_64_sync_handler+0x100/0x130 el0t_64_sync+0x3c8/0x3d0 Fix this by changing 'if (!rc)' to 'if (rc <= 0)' to ensure that error codes like -ENOENT do not bypass the check and accidentally result in a successful match. Fixes: 4af4662fa4a9d ("integrity: IMA policy") Signed-off-by: Zhao Yipeng Reviewed-by: Roberto Sassu Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c index 09da8e6392395..11b3ea1099ba3 100644 --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c @@ -672,7 +672,7 @@ static bool ima_match_rules(struct ima_rule_entry *rule, goto retry; } } - if (!rc) { + if (rc <= 0) { result = false; goto out; } -- 2.51.0