From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Linux Security Module list
<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: general protection fault in legacy_parse_param
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 07:27:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d15f9647-f67e-2d61-d7bd-c364f4288287@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211012103243.xumzerhvhklqrovj@wittgenstein>
On 10/12/2021 3:32 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 03:40:22PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> The usual LSM hook "bail on fail" scheme doesn't work for cases where
>> a security module may return an error code indicating that it does not
>> recognize an input. In this particular case Smack sees a mount option
>> that it recognizes, and returns 0. A call to a BPF hook follows, which
>> returns -ENOPARAM, which confuses the caller because Smack has processed
>> its data.
>>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
>> ---
> Thanks!
> Note, I think that we still have the SELinux issue we discussed in the
> other thread:
>
> rc = selinux_add_opt(opt, param->string, &fc->security);
> if (!rc) {
> param->string = NULL;
> rc = 1;
> }
>
> SELinux returns 1 not the expected 0. Not sure if that got fixed or is
> queued-up for -next. In any case, this here seems correct independent of
> that:
The aforementioned SELinux change depends on this patch. As the SELinux
code is today it blocks the problem seen with Smack, but introduces a
different issue. It prevents the BPF hook from being called.
So the question becomes whether the SELinux change should be included
here, or done separately. Without the security_fs_context_parse_param()
change the selinux_fs_context_parse_param() change results in messy
failures for SELinux mounts.
>
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
>
>> security/security.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>> index 09533cbb7221..3cf0faaf1c5b 100644
>> --- a/security/security.c
>> +++ b/security/security.c
>> @@ -885,7 +885,19 @@ int security_fs_context_dup(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_context *src_fc)
>>
>> int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
>> {
>> - return call_int_hook(fs_context_parse_param, -ENOPARAM, fc, param);
>> + struct security_hook_list *hp;
>> + int trc;
>> + int rc = -ENOPARAM;
>> +
>> + hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.fs_context_parse_param,
>> + list) {
>> + trc = hp->hook.fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
>> + if (trc == 0)
>> + rc = 0;
>> + else if (trc != -ENOPARAM)
>> + return trc;
>> + }
>> + return rc;
>> }
>>
>> int security_sb_alloc(struct super_block *sb)
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-12 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <018a9bb4-accb-c19a-5b0a-fde22f4bc822.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
2021-10-11 22:40 ` [PATCH] LSM: general protection fault in legacy_parse_param Casey Schaufler
2021-10-12 10:32 ` Christian Brauner
2021-10-12 14:27 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2022-01-25 22:18 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-25 23:30 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-01-25 23:36 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-26 7:24 ` Christian Brauner
2022-01-26 22:37 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-27 16:51 ` [PATCH v2] " Casey Schaufler
2022-01-27 17:33 ` James Morris
2022-01-28 1:44 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-28 2:33 ` Casey Schaufler
2022-01-28 8:59 ` Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d15f9647-f67e-2d61-d7bd-c364f4288287@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox