From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93DBEC43331 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746A22067B for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727059AbfKLSNB (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:13:01 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:27438 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725997AbfKLSNA (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:13:00 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xACICtkU047403 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:12:59 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w80fw350j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:12:59 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:12:28 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:12:26 -0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xACICPPE56492048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:12:25 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846FCA4051; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:12:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D14A4055; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:12:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.194.252]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:12:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] ima: avoid appraise error for hash calc interrupt From: Mimi Zohar To: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , Patrick Callaghan , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:12:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20191111192348.30535-1-patrickc@linux.ibm.com> <1573578841.17949.48.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19111218-0016-0000-0000-000002C312CB X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19111218-0017-0000-0000-00003324AA2F Message-Id: <1573582344.17949.67.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-11-12_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=707 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911120155 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 09:33 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 11/12/2019 9:14 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 14:29 -0800, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> On 11/11/19 11:23 AM, Patrick Callaghan wrote: > >> > >>> - if (rbuf_len == 0) > >>> + if (rbuf_len == 0) { /* unexpected EOF */ > >>> + rc = -EINVAL; > >>> break; > >>> + } > >>> offset += rbuf_len; > >> > >> Should there be an additional check to validate that (offset + rbuf_len) > >> is less than i_size before calling cypto_shash_update (since rbuf_len is > >> one of the parameters for this call)? > > > > The "while" statement enforces that. > > > > Mimi > > Yes - but that check happens after the call to crypto_shash_update(). > > Perhaps integrity_kernel_read() will never return (rbuf_len) that will > => violate the check in the "while" statement. > => number of bytes read that is greater than the memory allocated for > rbuf even in error conditions. > > Just making sure. integrity_kernel_read() returns an error (< 0) or the number of bytes read.  The while statement ensures that there is more data to read, so returning 0 is always an error. Mimi