lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] selinux: Add __GFP_NOWARN to allocation at str_read()
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:12 AM peter enderborg
<peter.enderborg@sony.com> wrote:
> On 09/13/2018 08:26 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2018/09/13 12:02, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:43 PM Tetsuo Handa
> >> <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> >>> syzbot is hitting warning at str_read() [1] because len parameter can
> >>> become larger than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. We don't need to emit warning for
> >>> this case.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=7f2f5aad79ea8663c296a2eedb81978401a908f0
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> >>> Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+ac488b9811036cea7ea0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> >>> index e9394e7..f4eadd3 100644
> >>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> >>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c
> >>> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ static int str_read(char **strp, gfp_t flags, void *fp, u32 len)
> >>> if ((len == 0) || (len == (u32)-1))
> >>> return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>> - str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags);
> >>> + str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags | __GFP_NOWARN);
> >>> if (!str)
> >>> return -ENOMEM;
> >> Thanks for the patch.
> >>
> >> My eyes are starting to glaze over a bit chasing down all of the
> >> different kmalloc() code paths trying to ensure that this always does
> >> the right thing based on size of the allocation and the different slab
> >> allocators ... are we sure that this will always return NULL when (len
> >> + 1) is greater than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE for the different slab allocator
> >> configurations?
> >>
> > Yes, for (len + 1) cannot become 0 (which causes kmalloc() to return
> > ZERO_SIZE_PTR) due to (len == (u32)-1) check above.
> >
> > The only concern would be whether you want allocation failure messages.
> > I assumed you don't need it because we are returning -ENOMEM to the caller.
> >
> Would it not be better with
>
> char *str;
>
> if ((len == 0) || (len == (u32)-1) || (len >= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags);
> if (!str)
> return -ENOMEM;

As long as it's safe, I'd rather leave the maximum allocation limit as
a kmalloc internal and let kmalloc return NULL if we try too large of
an allocation.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-13 21:30    [W:0.088 / U:5.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site