On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:31 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:12 AM Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > > The implementation of kernfs_security_xattr_*() helpers reuses the > > kernfs_node_xattr_*() functions, which take the suffix of the xattr name > > and extract full xattr name from it using xattr_full_name(). However, > > this function relies on the fact that the suffix passed to xattr > > handlers from VFS is always constructed from the full name by just > > incerementing the pointer. This doesn't necessarily hold for the callers > > of kernfs_security_xattr_*(), so their usage will easily lead to > > out-of-bounds access. > > > > Fix this by converting the helpers to take the full xattr name instead > > of just the suffix and moving the reconstruction to the xattr handlers. > > We now need to check if the prefix is correct in the helpers, but it > > saves us the difficulty of reconstructing the full name from just the > > plain suffix. > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot > > Fixes: b230d5aba2d1 ("LSM: add new hook for kernfs node initialization") > > Fixes: ec882da5cda9 ("selinux: implement the kernfs_init_security hook") > > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek > > --- > > > > v2: Rebase on current selinux/next. > > > > fs/kernfs/inode.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > > include/linux/kernfs.h | 8 ++++---- > > security/selinux/hooks.c | 6 +++--- > > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > Thanks for diagnosing this and providing a patch. I haven't seen any > objections, but I do have some questions (below). > > > diff --git a/fs/kernfs/inode.c b/fs/kernfs/inode.c > > index 673ef598d97d..1daa8aa9ec96 100644 > > --- a/fs/kernfs/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/kernfs/inode.c > > @@ -288,28 +288,20 @@ int kernfs_iop_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask) > > return generic_permission(inode, mask); > > } > > > > -static int kernfs_node_xattr_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler, > > - struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *suffix, > > +static int kernfs_node_xattr_get(struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *name, > > void *value, size_t size) > > { > > - const char *name = xattr_full_name(handler, suffix); > > - struct kernfs_iattrs *attrs; > > - > > - attrs = kernfs_iattrs_noalloc(kn); > > + struct kernfs_iattrs *attrs = kernfs_iattrs_noalloc(kn); > > if (!attrs) > > return -ENODATA; > > > > return simple_xattr_get(&attrs->xattrs, name, value, size); > > } > > > > -static int kernfs_node_xattr_set(const struct xattr_handler *handler, > > - struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *suffix, > > +static int kernfs_node_xattr_set(struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *name, > > const void *value, size_t size, int flags) > > { > > - const char *name = xattr_full_name(handler, suffix); > > - struct kernfs_iattrs *attrs; > > - > > - attrs = kernfs_iattrs(kn); > > + struct kernfs_iattrs *attrs = kernfs_iattrs(kn); > > if (!attrs) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > ... > > > -int kernfs_security_xattr_get(struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *suffix, > > +int kernfs_security_xattr_get(struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *name, > > void *value, size_t size) > > { > > - return kernfs_node_xattr_get(&kernfs_security_xattr_handler, > > - kn, suffix, value, size); > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!strstarts(name, XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX))) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + return kernfs_node_xattr_get(kn, name, value, size); > > } > > > > -int kernfs_security_xattr_set(struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *suffix, > > +int kernfs_security_xattr_set(struct kernfs_node *kn, const char *name, > > void *value, size_t size, int flags) > > { > > - return kernfs_node_xattr_set(&kernfs_security_xattr_handler, > > - kn, suffix, value, size, flags); > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!strstarts(name, XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX))) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + return kernfs_node_xattr_set(kn, name, value, size, flags); > > } > > I think it is reasonable to ask if we even need > kernfs_security_xattr_{set|get}()? Can we just call the respective > kernfs_node_xattr*() functions instead? I can't imagine the > WARN_ON_ONCE check being that important. Indeed, it is now much more natural to just expose all xattrs in those helpers... I concur that the encapsulation doesn't seem to be worth it any more. Let me do a simplified respin... -- Ondrej Mosnacek Software Engineer, Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc.