Hi Stephen,

On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 10:14 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi all,

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:32:05 +0530 madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <redacted>

This patch fixes the following warning and few other
instances of traversal of evm_config_xattrnames list:

[   32.848432] =============================
[   32.848707] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[   32.848966] 5.7.0-rc1-00006-ga8d5875ce5f0b #1 Not tainted
[   32.849308] -----------------------------
[   32.849567] security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c:231 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!

Since entries are only added to the list and never deleted,
use list_For_each_entry_lockless() instead of
list_for_each_entry_rcu() for traversing the list.
Also, add a relevant comment in evm_secfs.c to indicate this fact.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <redacted>
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <redacted>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
 security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c | 2 +-
 security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c   | 4 ++--
 security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c  | 9 ++++++++-
 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c b/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
index 35682852ddea..b2dc87da5f50 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c

@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int evm_calc_hmac_or_hash(struct dentry *dentry,
 	data->hdr.length = crypto_shash_digestsize(desc->tfm);
 
 	error = -ENODATA;
-	list_for_each_entry_rcu(xattr, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry_lockless(xattr, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
 		bool is_ima = false;
 
 		if (strcmp(xattr->name, XATTR_NAME_IMA) == 0)

diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c b/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
index d361d7fdafc4..0d36259b690d 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c

@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static int evm_find_protected_xattrs(struct dentry *dentry)
 	if (!(inode->i_opflags & IOP_XATTR))
 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
-	list_for_each_entry_rcu(xattr, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry_lockless(xattr, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
 		error = __vfs_getxattr(dentry, inode, xattr->name, NULL, 0);
 		if (error < 0) {
 			if (error == -ENODATA)

@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static int evm_protected_xattr(const char *req_xattr_name)
 	struct xattr_list *xattr;
 
 	namelen = strlen(req_xattr_name);
-	list_for_each_entry_rcu(xattr, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry_lockless(xattr, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
 		if ((strlen(xattr->name) == namelen)
 		    && (strncmp(req_xattr_name, xattr->name, namelen) == 0)) {
 			found = 1;

diff --git a/security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c b/security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c
index 39ad1038d45d..cfc3075769bb 100644
--- a/security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c
+++ b/security/integrity/evm/evm_secfs.c

@@ -232,7 +232,14 @@ static ssize_t evm_write_xattrs(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	/* Guard against races in evm_read_xattrs */
+	/*
+	 * xattr_list_mutex guards against races in evm_read_xattrs().
+	 * Entries are only added to the evm_config_xattrnames list
+	 * and never deleted. Therefore, the list is traversed
+	 * using list_for_each_entry_lockless() without holding
+	 * the mutex in evm_calc_hmac_or_hash(), evm_find_protected_xattrs()
+	 * and evm_protected_xattr().
+	 */
 	mutex_lock(&xattr_list_mutex);
 	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &evm_config_xattrnames, list) {
 		if (strcmp(xattr->name, tmp->name) == 0) {

I will apply this to linux-next today.

Is there something stopping this being applied to a tree?  And does it
need to be sent to Linus soon?

Sorry for the delay in pushing this and other fixes to the next-
integrity branch.  It's in my next-integrity-testing branch.

This isn't a bug per-se, just annotating the reason for the lack of
locking.

thanks,

Mimi