[PATCH] general protection fault in sock_has_perm
From: Mark Salyzyn <hidden>
Date: 2018-01-19 17:34:43
Also in:
lkml, selinux, stable
On 01/19/2018 09:19 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 13:58 -0800, Mark Salyzyn wrote:quoted
general protection fault: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN . . .diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c index 8644d864e3c1..95d7c8143373 100644 --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c@@ -4342,7 +4342,7 @@ static int sock_has_perm(struct sock *sk, u32perms) struct common_audit_data ad; struct lsm_network_audit net = {0,}; - if (sksec->sid == SECINITSID_KERNEL) + if (!sksec || sksec->sid == SECINITSID_KERNEL) return 0;The patch description says "null check the sk_security, and if the case, reject the permissions." The patch code instead has it return 0/success, i.e. permission granted. Which one is correct?
<oops> -EACCESS would be advised, yes. THANKS. <please remove my mistake from my permanent record ;-} >
If we return -EACCES, then we might break userspace; if we return 0, we might be allowing an operation that should have been denied. Both seem like losing propositions.
if the sk_security is NULL, it is in-effect a form of UAF, so kernel _and_ user space is already 'sick'. I think it is a significantly larger losing proposition to panic the kernel? Reporting -EACCESS (as was proper) is a error propagation way to let user space deal with the erroneous condition.
Could we instead have selinux_sk_free_security() defer freeing of the sock security blob to a call_rcu(), like we did for inode_free_security, or change the caller of it to not free it until the sock is truly freed?
AFAIK the upper issue is the premature closing on an RCU protected object, and the _right_ answer is that its call should have been properly deferred to a synchronization or grace period. Having sk_free_security be deferred by the grace period runs the risk that it is in a race with the proper deletion of a languishing read object in an RCU. It is a bug in the upper layers. My proposal in this KISS stability patch is to make security deal with those bugs gracefully until all those issues are fixed (in ToT). -- Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html