From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "David Windsor" <dwindsor@gmail.com>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/4] security: introduce struct lsm_xattrs
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 23:53:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260730235320.EEA951F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260730234533.1912709-2-dwindsor@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Latent buffer overflow: `struct lsm_xattrs` lacks a capacity field, and `lsm_get_xattr_slot()` increments `xattr_count` without bounds checking.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/4] security: introduce struct lsm_xattrs ---
commit 4d965e040bf3aa7aac8ca18905c2c3f09a037f96
Author: David Windsor <dwindsor@gmail.com>
security: introduce struct lsm_xattrs
This patch introduces struct lsm_xattrs to consolidate the LSM xattr array
and its count into a single context object. This preparation allows better
compatibility with the BPF verifier for a planned kfunc that lets BPF LSM
programs atomically label new inodes.
> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> --- a/include/linux/security.h
> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
[ ... ]
> @@ -68,6 +68,11 @@ struct watch;
> struct watch_notification;
> struct lsm_ctx;
>
> +struct lsm_xattrs {
> + struct xattr *xattrs;
> + unsigned int xattr_count;
> +};
> +
[Severity: Medium]
Should this struct also track the maximum capacity of the array?
Since this object is being introduced to allow dynamically loaded BPF LSM
programs to label new inodes, a BPF program calling the planned kfunc
multiple times could potentially exceed the allocated capacity. Tracking
the max capacity would allow for bounds checking.
> /* Default (no) options for the capable function */
> #define CAP_OPT_NONE 0x0
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
[ ... ]
> -static inline struct xattr *lsm_get_xattr_slot(struct xattr *xattrs,
> - int *xattr_count)
> +static inline struct xattr *lsm_get_xattr_slot(struct lsm_xattrs *ctx)
> {
> - if (unlikely(!xattrs))
> + if (unlikely(!ctx || !ctx->xattrs))
> return NULL;
> - return &xattrs[(*xattr_count)++];
> + return &ctx->xattrs[ctx->xattr_count++];
> }
[Severity: Medium]
Does this increment need a bounds check against the array capacity?
If a dynamic BPF LSM program requests more slots than were allocated in
security_inode_init_security() (via blob_sizes.lbs_xattr_count + 1), this
would result in an out-of-bounds write to the array.
This could subsequently lead to memory corruption during the cleanup loop
that calls kfree() on the array elements.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260730234533.1912709-1-dwindsor@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-30 23:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-30 23:45 [PATCH v6 bpf-next 0/4] bpf: add bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc for atomic inode labeling David Windsor
2026-07-30 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/4] security: introduce struct lsm_xattrs David Windsor
2026-07-30 23:53 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-31 22:12 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-07-30 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/4] security: add security_lsmxattr_add() David Windsor
2026-07-31 0:00 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 0:30 ` David Windsor
2026-07-30 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: add bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc for atomic inode labeling David Windsor
2026-07-30 23:53 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 0:01 ` David Windsor
2026-07-31 15:17 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 15:30 ` David Windsor
2026-07-31 15:33 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 15:36 ` David Windsor
2026-07-31 15:44 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 16:02 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 16:32 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 16:59 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 18:18 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 18:42 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 18:50 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 19:05 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 19:20 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 20:01 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 20:07 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 20:16 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 20:48 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 21:29 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 21:49 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 22:04 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 22:23 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 23:11 ` David Windsor
2026-07-31 23:34 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 23:35 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-08-02 14:46 ` Paul Moore
2026-08-02 14:50 ` Paul Moore
2026-07-31 22:27 ` Casey Schaufler
2026-07-31 22:45 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 23:01 ` Casey Schaufler
2026-07-31 23:14 ` Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2026-07-31 0:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-31 22:27 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-07-30 23:45 ` [PATCH v6 bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: add tests for bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc David Windsor
2026-07-30 23:55 ` sashiko-bot
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=20260730235320.EEA951F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dwindsor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
/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