* [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules".
@ 2024-05-07 9:37 GUO Zihua
2024-05-07 11:54 ` Mimi Zohar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: GUO Zihua @ 2024-05-07 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: zohar, dmitry.kasatkin, jmorris, serge; +Cc: linux-integrity, stable
From: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
[ Upstream commit eb0782bbdfd0d7c4786216659277c3fd585afc0e ]
The current IMA ruleset is identified by the variable "ima_rules"
that default to "&ima_default_rules". When loading a custom policy
for the first time, the variable is updated to "&ima_policy_rules"
instead. That update isn't RCU-safe, and deadlocks are possible.
Indeed, some functions like ima_match_policy() may loop indefinitely
when traversing "ima_default_rules" with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
When iterating over the default ruleset back to head, if the list
head is "ima_default_rules", and "ima_rules" have been updated to
"&ima_policy_rules", the loop condition (&entry->list != ima_rules)
stays always true, traversing won't terminate, causing a soft lockup
and RCU stalls.
Introduce a temporary value for "ima_rules" when iterating over
the ruleset to avoid the deadlocks.
Addition:
A rcu_read_lock pair is added within ima_update_policy_flag to avoid
suspicious RCU usage warning. This pair of RCU lock was added with
commit 4f2946aa0c45 ("IMA: introduce a new policy option
func=SETXATTR_CHECK") on mainstream.
Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
Reviewed-by: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
Fixes: 38d859f991f3 ("IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> (Fix sparse: incompatible types in comparison expression.)
Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: GUO Zihua <guozihua@huawei.com>
---
security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
index 1c403e8a8044..4f5d44037081 100644
--- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
+++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static struct ima_rule_entry *arch_policy_entry __ro_after_init;
static LIST_HEAD(ima_default_rules);
static LIST_HEAD(ima_policy_rules);
static LIST_HEAD(ima_temp_rules);
-static struct list_head *ima_rules = &ima_default_rules;
+static struct list_head __rcu *ima_rules = (struct list_head __rcu *)(&ima_default_rules);
static int ima_policy __initdata;
@@ -648,12 +648,14 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
{
struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
int action = 0, actmask = flags | (flags << 1);
+ struct list_head *ima_rules_tmp;
if (template_desc)
*template_desc = ima_template_desc_current();
rcu_read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules, list) {
+ ima_rules_tmp = rcu_dereference(ima_rules);
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules_tmp, list) {
if (!(entry->action & actmask))
continue;
@@ -701,11 +703,15 @@ int ima_match_policy(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
void ima_update_policy_flag(void)
{
struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
+ struct list_head *ima_rules_tmp;
- list_for_each_entry(entry, ima_rules, list) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ ima_rules_tmp = rcu_dereference(ima_rules);
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules_tmp, list) {
if (entry->action & IMA_DO_MASK)
ima_policy_flag |= entry->action;
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
ima_appraise |= (build_ima_appraise | temp_ima_appraise);
if (!ima_appraise)
@@ -898,10 +904,10 @@ void ima_update_policy(void)
list_splice_tail_init_rcu(&ima_temp_rules, policy, synchronize_rcu);
- if (ima_rules != policy) {
+ if (ima_rules != (struct list_head __rcu *)policy) {
ima_policy_flag = 0;
- ima_rules = policy;
+ rcu_assign_pointer(ima_rules, policy);
/*
* IMA architecture specific policy rules are specified
* as strings and converted to an array of ima_entry_rules
@@ -989,7 +995,7 @@ static int ima_lsm_rule_init(struct ima_rule_entry *entry,
pr_warn("rule for LSM \'%s\' is undefined\n",
entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p);
- if (ima_rules == &ima_default_rules) {
+ if (ima_rules == (struct list_head __rcu *)(&ima_default_rules)) {
kfree(entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p);
entry->lsm[lsm_rule].args_p = NULL;
result = -EINVAL;
@@ -1598,9 +1604,11 @@ void *ima_policy_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
{
loff_t l = *pos;
struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
+ struct list_head *ima_rules_tmp;
rcu_read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules, list) {
+ ima_rules_tmp = rcu_dereference(ima_rules);
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules_tmp, list) {
if (!l--) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return entry;
@@ -1619,7 +1627,8 @@ void *ima_policy_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos)
rcu_read_unlock();
(*pos)++;
- return (&entry->list == ima_rules) ? NULL : entry;
+ return (&entry->list == &ima_default_rules ||
+ &entry->list == &ima_policy_rules) ? NULL : entry;
}
void ima_policy_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
@@ -1823,6 +1832,7 @@ bool ima_appraise_signature(enum kernel_read_file_id id)
struct ima_rule_entry *entry;
bool found = false;
enum ima_hooks func;
+ struct list_head *ima_rules_tmp;
if (id >= READING_MAX_ID)
return false;
@@ -1834,7 +1844,8 @@ bool ima_appraise_signature(enum kernel_read_file_id id)
func = read_idmap[id] ?: FILE_CHECK;
rcu_read_lock();
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules, list) {
+ ima_rules_tmp = rcu_dereference(ima_rules);
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(entry, ima_rules_tmp, list) {
if (entry->action != APPRAISE)
continue;
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules".
2024-05-07 9:37 [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules" GUO Zihua
@ 2024-05-07 11:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2024-05-08 2:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mimi Zohar @ 2024-05-07 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GUO Zihua, dmitry.kasatkin, jmorris, serge; +Cc: linux-integrity, stable
On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 09:37 +0000, GUO Zihua wrote:
> From: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
>
> [ Upstream commit eb0782bbdfd0d7c4786216659277c3fd585afc0e ]
>
> The current IMA ruleset is identified by the variable "ima_rules"
> that default to "&ima_default_rules". When loading a custom policy
> for the first time, the variable is updated to "&ima_policy_rules"
> instead. That update isn't RCU-safe, and deadlocks are possible.
> Indeed, some functions like ima_match_policy() may loop indefinitely
> when traversing "ima_default_rules" with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
>
> When iterating over the default ruleset back to head, if the list
> head is "ima_default_rules", and "ima_rules" have been updated to
> "&ima_policy_rules", the loop condition (&entry->list != ima_rules)
> stays always true, traversing won't terminate, causing a soft lockup
> and RCU stalls.
>
> Introduce a temporary value for "ima_rules" when iterating over
> the ruleset to avoid the deadlocks.
>
> Addition:
>
> A rcu_read_lock pair is added within ima_update_policy_flag to avoid
> suspicious RCU usage warning. This pair of RCU lock was added with
> commit 4f2946aa0c45 ("IMA: introduce a new policy option
> func=SETXATTR_CHECK") on mainstream.
>
> Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
> Reviewed-by: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
> Fixes: 38d859f991f3 ("IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> (Fix sparse: incompatible types in comparison expression.)
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> Sig=ned-off-by: GUO Zihua <guozihua@huawei.com>
Hi Scott,
I'm confused by this patch. Is it meant for upstream?
thanks,
Mimi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules".
2024-05-07 11:54 ` Mimi Zohar
@ 2024-05-08 2:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
2024-05-08 7:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guozihua (Scott) @ 2024-05-08 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar, dmitry.kasatkin, jmorris, serge; +Cc: linux-integrity, stable
On 2024/5/7 19:54, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 09:37 +0000, GUO Zihua wrote:
>> From: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit eb0782bbdfd0d7c4786216659277c3fd585afc0e ]
>>
>> The current IMA ruleset is identified by the variable "ima_rules"
>> that default to "&ima_default_rules". When loading a custom policy
>> for the first time, the variable is updated to "&ima_policy_rules"
>> instead. That update isn't RCU-safe, and deadlocks are possible.
>> Indeed, some functions like ima_match_policy() may loop indefinitely
>> when traversing "ima_default_rules" with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
>>
>> When iterating over the default ruleset back to head, if the list
>> head is "ima_default_rules", and "ima_rules" have been updated to
>> "&ima_policy_rules", the loop condition (&entry->list != ima_rules)
>> stays always true, traversing won't terminate, causing a soft lockup
>> and RCU stalls.
>>
>> Introduce a temporary value for "ima_rules" when iterating over
>> the ruleset to avoid the deadlocks.
>>
>> Addition:
>>
>> A rcu_read_lock pair is added within ima_update_policy_flag to avoid
>> suspicious RCU usage warning. This pair of RCU lock was added with
>> commit 4f2946aa0c45 ("IMA: introduce a new policy option
>> func=SETXATTR_CHECK") on mainstream.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
>> Reviewed-by: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
>> Fixes: 38d859f991f3 ("IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times")
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> (Fix sparse: incompatible types in comparison expression.)
>> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
>> Sig=ned-off-by: GUO Zihua <guozihua@huawei.com>
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I'm confused by this patch. Is it meant for upstream?
>
> thanks,
>
> Mimi
>
It's a backport from upstream.
--
Best
GUO Zihua
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules".
2024-05-08 2:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
@ 2024-05-08 7:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
2024-05-23 11:44 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guozihua (Scott) @ 2024-05-08 7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mimi Zohar, dmitry.kasatkin, jmorris, serge; +Cc: linux-integrity, stable
On 2024/5/8 10:06, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
> On 2024/5/7 19:54, Mimi Zohar wrote:
>> On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 09:37 +0000, GUO Zihua wrote:
>>> From: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit eb0782bbdfd0d7c4786216659277c3fd585afc0e ]
>>>
>>> The current IMA ruleset is identified by the variable "ima_rules"
>>> that default to "&ima_default_rules". When loading a custom policy
>>> for the first time, the variable is updated to "&ima_policy_rules"
>>> instead. That update isn't RCU-safe, and deadlocks are possible.
>>> Indeed, some functions like ima_match_policy() may loop indefinitely
>>> when traversing "ima_default_rules" with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
>>>
>>> When iterating over the default ruleset back to head, if the list
>>> head is "ima_default_rules", and "ima_rules" have been updated to
>>> "&ima_policy_rules", the loop condition (&entry->list != ima_rules)
>>> stays always true, traversing won't terminate, causing a soft lockup
>>> and RCU stalls.
>>>
>>> Introduce a temporary value for "ima_rules" when iterating over
>>> the ruleset to avoid the deadlocks.
>>>
>>> Addition:
>>>
>>> A rcu_read_lock pair is added within ima_update_policy_flag to avoid
>>> suspicious RCU usage warning. This pair of RCU lock was added with
>>> commit 4f2946aa0c45 ("IMA: introduce a new policy option
>>> func=SETXATTR_CHECK") on mainstream.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
>>> Fixes: 38d859f991f3 ("IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times")
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> (Fix sparse: incompatible types in comparison expression.)
>>> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Sig=ned-off-by: GUO Zihua <guozihua@huawei.com>
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> I'm confused by this patch. Is it meant for upstream?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Mimi
>>
> It's a backport from upstream.
>
To clarify, it's meant for Linux-5.10.y.
--
Best
GUO Zihua
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules".
2024-05-08 7:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
@ 2024-05-23 11:44 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2024-05-23 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guozihua (Scott)
Cc: Mimi Zohar, dmitry.kasatkin, jmorris, serge, linux-integrity,
stable
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 03:06:30PM +0800, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
> On 2024/5/8 10:06, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
> > On 2024/5/7 19:54, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 09:37 +0000, GUO Zihua wrote:
> >>> From: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
> >>>
> >>> [ Upstream commit eb0782bbdfd0d7c4786216659277c3fd585afc0e ]
> >>>
> >>> The current IMA ruleset is identified by the variable "ima_rules"
> >>> that default to "&ima_default_rules". When loading a custom policy
> >>> for the first time, the variable is updated to "&ima_policy_rules"
> >>> instead. That update isn't RCU-safe, and deadlocks are possible.
> >>> Indeed, some functions like ima_match_policy() may loop indefinitely
> >>> when traversing "ima_default_rules" with list_for_each_entry_rcu().
> >>>
> >>> When iterating over the default ruleset back to head, if the list
> >>> head is "ima_default_rules", and "ima_rules" have been updated to
> >>> "&ima_policy_rules", the loop condition (&entry->list != ima_rules)
> >>> stays always true, traversing won't terminate, causing a soft lockup
> >>> and RCU stalls.
> >>>
> >>> Introduce a temporary value for "ima_rules" when iterating over
> >>> the ruleset to avoid the deadlocks.
> >>>
> >>> Addition:
> >>>
> >>> A rcu_read_lock pair is added within ima_update_policy_flag to avoid
> >>> suspicious RCU usage warning. This pair of RCU lock was added with
> >>> commit 4f2946aa0c45 ("IMA: introduce a new policy option
> >>> func=SETXATTR_CHECK") on mainstream.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: liqiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: THOBY Simon <Simon.THOBY@viveris.fr>
> >>> Fixes: 38d859f991f3 ("IMA: policy can now be updated multiple times")
> >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> (Fix sparse: incompatible types in comparison expression.)
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
> >>> Sig=ned-off-by: GUO Zihua <guozihua@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> Hi Scott,
> >>
> >> I'm confused by this patch. Is it meant for upstream?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> Mimi
> >>
> > It's a backport from upstream.
> >
> To clarify, it's meant for Linux-5.10.y.
Now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-05-23 11:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-05-07 9:37 [PATCH] ima: fix deadlock when traversing "ima_default_rules" GUO Zihua
2024-05-07 11:54 ` Mimi Zohar
2024-05-08 2:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
2024-05-08 7:06 ` Guozihua (Scott)
2024-05-23 11:44 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox