linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] selinux: fix race when removing selinuxfs entries
@ 2018-10-02 11:18 Ondrej Mosnacek
  2018-10-02 15:58 ` Al Viro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2018-10-02 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: selinux, Paul Moore
  Cc: linux-fsdevel, Ondrej Mosnacek, stable, Stephen Smalley, Al Viro

Letting the following set of commands run long enough on a multi-core
machine causes soft lockups in the kernel:

    (cd /sys/fs/selinux/; while true; do find >/dev/null 2>&1; done) &
    (cd /sys/fs/selinux/; while true; do find >/dev/null 2>&1; done) &
    (cd /sys/fs/selinux/; while true; do find >/dev/null 2>&1; done) &
    while true; do load_policy; echo -n .; sleep 0.1; done

The problem is that sel_remove_entries() calls d_genocide() to remove
the whole contents of certain subdirectories in /sys/fs/selinux/. This
function is apparently only intended for removing filesystem entries
that are no longer accessible to userspace, because it doesn't follow
the rule that any code removing entries from a directory must hold the
write lock on the directory's inode RW semaphore (formerly this was a
mutex, see 9902af79c01a ("parallel lookups: actual switch to rwsem")).

In order to fix this, I had to open-code d_genocide() again, adding the
necessary parent inode locking. I based the new implementation on
d_walk() (fs/dcache.c), the original code from before ad52184b705c
("selinuxfs: don't open-code d_genocide()"), and with a slight
inspiration from debugfs_remove() (fs/debugfs/inode.c).

The new code no longer triggers soft lockups with the above reproducer
and it also gives no warnings when run with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y.

Note that I am adding Fixes: on the commit that replaced the open-coded
version with d_genocide(), but the bug is present also in the original
code that dates back to pre-2.6 times... This patch obviously doesn't
apply to this older code so pre-4.0 kernels will need a dedicated patch
(just adding the parent inode locks should be sufficient there).

Link: https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-kernel/issues/42
Fixes: ad52184b705c ("selinuxfs: don't open-code d_genocide()")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.0+
Cc: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
---
 security/selinux/selinuxfs.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
index f3a5a138a096..4ac9b17e24d1 100644
--- a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
+++ b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
@@ -1316,10 +1316,92 @@ static const struct file_operations sel_commit_bools_ops = {
 	.llseek		= generic_file_llseek,
 };
 
-static void sel_remove_entries(struct dentry *de)
+/* removes all children of the given dentry (but not itself) */
+static void sel_remove_entries(struct dentry *root)
 {
-	d_genocide(de);
-	shrink_dcache_parent(de);
+	struct dentry *parent = root;
+	struct dentry *child;
+	struct list_head *next;
+
+	spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
+
+repeat:
+	next = parent->d_subdirs.next;
+
+	while (next != &parent->d_subdirs) {
+		child = list_entry(next, struct dentry, d_child);
+		next = next->next;
+
+		spin_lock_nested(&child->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
+
+		if (!list_empty(&child->d_subdirs)) {
+			/* Current entry has children, we need to remove those
+			 * first. We unlock the parent but keep the child locked
+			 * (it will become the new parent). */
+			spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
+
+			/* we need to re-lock the child (new parent) in a
+			 * special way (see d_walk() in fs/dcache.c) */
+			spin_release(&child->d_lock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+			parent = child;
+			spin_acquire(&parent->d_lock.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
+			goto repeat;
+		}
+
+resume:
+		if (child->d_inode) {
+			/* acquire a reference to the child */
+			dget_dlock(child);
+
+			/* drop all locks (someof the callees will try to
+			 * acquire them) */
+			spin_unlock(&child->d_lock);
+			spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
+
+			/* IMPORTANT: we need to hold the parent's inode lock
+			 * because some functions (namely dcache_readdir) assume
+			 * holding this lock means children won't be removed */
+			inode_lock_nested(parent->d_inode, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
+
+			/* now unlink the child */
+			if (d_is_dir(child))
+				simple_rmdir(d_inode(parent), child);
+			else
+				simple_unlink(d_inode(parent), child);
+			d_delete(child);
+
+			inode_unlock(parent->d_inode);
+
+			/* drop our extra reference */
+			dput(child);
+
+			/* re-lock only the parent */
+			spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
+		} else
+			spin_unlock(&child->d_lock);
+	}
+
+	if (parent != root) {
+		/* we processed contents of a subdirectory, ascend and continue
+		 * by removing the subdirectory itself (now empty) */
+		child = parent;
+		parent = child->d_parent;
+
+		/* we have to re-lock the child after locking the parent */
+		spin_unlock(&child->d_lock);
+		spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
+		spin_lock_nested(&child->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
+
+		/* set next to the next sibling */
+		next = child->d_child.next;
+		goto resume;
+	}
+
+	spin_unlock(&root->d_lock);
+
+	/* try to clean up the stale entries */
+	shrink_dcache_parent(root);
 }
 
 #define BOOL_DIR_NAME "booleans"
-- 
2.17.1

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] selinux: fix race when removing selinuxfs entries
  2018-10-02 11:18 [PATCH] selinux: fix race when removing selinuxfs entries Ondrej Mosnacek
@ 2018-10-02 15:58 ` Al Viro
  2018-10-03  8:18   ` Ondrej Mosnacek
  2018-10-03 13:02   ` Stephen Smalley
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2018-10-02 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ondrej Mosnacek
  Cc: selinux, Paul Moore, linux-fsdevel, stable, Stephen Smalley

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:18:30PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:

No.  With the side of Hell, No.  The bug is real, but this is
not the way to fix it.

First of all, it's still broken - e.g. mount something on a
subdirectory and watch what that thing will do to it.  And
anyone who has permission to reload policy _will_ have one
for mount.

And yes, debugfs_remove() suffers the same problem.  Frankly, the
only wish debugfs_remove() implementation inspires is to shoot it
before it breeds.  Which is the second problem with that approach -
such stuff really shouldn't be duplicated in individual filesystems.  

Don't copy (let along open-code) d_walk() in there.  The guts of
dcache tree handling are subtle enough (and had more than enough
locking bugs over the years) to make spreading the dependencies
on its details all over the tree an invitation for massive PITA
down the road.

I have beginnings of patch doing that for debugfs; the same thing
should be usable for selinuxfs as well.  However, the main problem
with selinuxfs wrt policy loading is different - what to do if
sel_make_policy_nodes() fails halfway through?  And what to do
with accesses to the unholy mix of old and new nodes we currently
have left behind?

Before security_load_policy() we don't know which nodes to create;
after it we have nothing to fall back onto.  It looks like we
need to split security_load_policy() into "load", "switch over" and
"free old" parts, so that the whole thing would look like
	load
	create new directory trees, unconnected to the root so
they couldn't be reached by lookups until we are done
	switch over
	move the new directory trees in place
	kill the old trees (using that invalidate+genocide carefully
combination)
	free old data structures
with failures upon the first two steps handled by killing whatever detached
trees we'd created (if any) and freeing the new data structures.

However, I'd really like to have the folks familiar with selinux guts to
comment upon the feasibility of the above.  AFAICS, nobody has ever seriously
looked at that code wrt graceful error handling, etc.[*], so I'm not happy
with making inferences from what the existing code is doing.

If you are interested in getting selinuxfs into sane shape, that would
be a good place to start.  As for the kernel-side rm -rf (which is what
debugfs_remove() et.al. are trying to be)...
	* it absolutely needs to be in fs/*.c - either dcache or libfs.
It's too closely tied to dcache guts to do otherwise.
	* as the first step it needs to do d_invalidate(), to get rid of
anything that might be mounted on it and to prevent new mounts from appearing.
It's rather tempting to unhash everything in the victim tree at the same
time, but that needs to be done with care - I'm still not entirely happy
with the solution I've got in that area.  Alternative is to unhash them
on the way out of subtree.  simple_unlink()/simple_rmdir() are wrong
there - we don't want to bother with the parent's timestamps as we go,
for one thing; that should be done only once to parent of the root of
that subtree.  For another, we bloody well enforce the emptiness ourselves,
so this simple_empty() is pointless (especially since we have no choice other
than ignoring it anyway).

BTW, another selinuxfs unpleasantness is, the things like sel_write_enforce()
don't have any exclusion against themselves, let alone the policy reloads.
And quite a few of them obviously expect that e.g. permission check is done
against the same policy the operation will apply to, not the previous one.
That one definitely needs selinux folks involved.

[*] not too unreasonably so - anyone who gets to use _that_ as an attack
vector has already won, so it's not a security problem pretty much by
definition and running into heavy OOM at the time of policy reload is
almost certainly going to end up with the userland parts of the entire
thing not handling failures gracefully.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] selinux: fix race when removing selinuxfs entries
  2018-10-02 15:58 ` Al Viro
@ 2018-10-03  8:18   ` Ondrej Mosnacek
  2018-10-03 13:02   ` Stephen Smalley
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ondrej Mosnacek @ 2018-10-03  8:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Al Viro; +Cc: SElinux list, Paul Moore, linux-fsdevel, stable, Stephen Smalley

Hi Al,

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:58 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:18:30PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
>
> No.  With the side of Hell, No.  The bug is real, but this is
> not the way to fix it.
>
> First of all, it's still broken - e.g. mount something on a
> subdirectory and watch what that thing will do to it.  And
> anyone who has permission to reload policy _will_ have one
> for mount.

I have no doubts there are still tons of bugs left over, but having
processes traverse selinuxfs while load_policy is in progress is
something that can (and will) easily happen in practice. Mounting over
an selinuxfs subdirectory OTOH isn't something that you would normally
do. I think it is worth doing a quick but partial fix that fixes a
practical problem and then working towards a better long-term
solution.

I feel like you are assuming that I am trying to fix some security
problem here, but that's not true. It *may* be seen as a security
issue, but as you point out having permission to load policy will
usually imply you can do other kinds of damage anyway. I simply see
this as an annoying real-life bug (I know of at least one user that
is/was affected) that I want to fix (even if not in a perfect way for
now).

>
> And yes, debugfs_remove() suffers the same problem.  Frankly, the
> only wish debugfs_remove() implementation inspires is to shoot it
> before it breeds.  Which is the second problem with that approach -
> such stuff really shouldn't be duplicated in individual filesystems.
>
> Don't copy (let along open-code) d_walk() in there.  The guts of
> dcache tree handling are subtle enough (and had more than enough
> locking bugs over the years) to make spreading the dependencies
> on its details all over the tree an invitation for massive PITA
> down the road.

Right, I am now convinced that it is not a good idea at all. The
thought of adding a new function to dcache has crossed my mind, but I
dismissed it as I didn't want to needlessly touch other parts of the
kernel. Looking back now, it would have been a better choice indeed.

>
> I have beginnings of patch doing that for debugfs; the same thing
> should be usable for selinuxfs as well.  However, the main problem
> with selinuxfs wrt policy loading is different - what to do if
> sel_make_policy_nodes() fails halfway through?  And what to do
> with accesses to the unholy mix of old and new nodes we currently
> have left behind?

Again, this a big problem, too, but out of the scope I care about right now.

>
> Before security_load_policy() we don't know which nodes to create;
> after it we have nothing to fall back onto.  It looks like we
> need to split security_load_policy() into "load", "switch over" and
> "free old" parts, so that the whole thing would look like
>         load
>         create new directory trees, unconnected to the root so
> they couldn't be reached by lookups until we are done
>         switch over
>         move the new directory trees in place
>         kill the old trees (using that invalidate+genocide carefully
> combination)
>         free old data structures
> with failures upon the first two steps handled by killing whatever detached
> trees we'd created (if any) and freeing the new data structures.
>
> However, I'd really like to have the folks familiar with selinux guts to
> comment upon the feasibility of the above.  AFAICS, nobody has ever seriously
> looked at that code wrt graceful error handling, etc.[*], so I'm not happy
> with making inferences from what the existing code is doing.

Yes, that sounds like it could work. I'd be willing to work on that as
a longer term solution. Let's hope we get some feedback from them.

>
> If you are interested in getting selinuxfs into sane shape, that would
> be a good place to start.  As for the kernel-side rm -rf (which is what
> debugfs_remove() et.al. are trying to be)...
>         * it absolutely needs to be in fs/*.c - either dcache or libfs.
> It's too closely tied to dcache guts to do otherwise.
>         * as the first step it needs to do d_invalidate(), to get rid of
> anything that might be mounted on it and to prevent new mounts from appearing.
> It's rather tempting to unhash everything in the victim tree at the same
> time, but that needs to be done with care - I'm still not entirely happy
> with the solution I've got in that area.  Alternative is to unhash them
> on the way out of subtree.  simple_unlink()/simple_rmdir() are wrong
> there - we don't want to bother with the parent's timestamps as we go,
> for one thing; that should be done only once to parent of the root of
> that subtree.  For another, we bloody well enforce the emptiness ourselves,
> so this simple_empty() is pointless (especially since we have no choice other
> than ignoring it anyway).

Right, I was suspicious about the simple_*() functions anyway, I
simply wanted to stay close to what the old code and debugfs were
doing (turns out they were both wrong anyway).

So, it sounds like you are already working on a better fix... Should I
wait for your patch(es) or should I try again? There is no rush, I
just want to know if it makes sense for me to still work on it :)

>
> BTW, another selinuxfs unpleasantness is, the things like sel_write_enforce()
> don't have any exclusion against themselves, let alone the policy reloads.
> And quite a few of them obviously expect that e.g. permission check is done
> against the same policy the operation will apply to, not the previous one.
> That one definitely needs selinux folks involved.
>
> [*] not too unreasonably so - anyone who gets to use _that_ as an attack
> vector has already won, so it's not a security problem pretty much by
> definition and running into heavy OOM at the time of policy reload is
> almost certainly going to end up with the userland parts of the entire
> thing not handling failures gracefully.

Thanks a lot for your comments!

-- 
Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace at redhat dot com>
Associate Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] selinux: fix race when removing selinuxfs entries
  2018-10-02 15:58 ` Al Viro
  2018-10-03  8:18   ` Ondrej Mosnacek
@ 2018-10-03 13:02   ` Stephen Smalley
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Smalley @ 2018-10-03 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Al Viro, Ondrej Mosnacek; +Cc: selinux, Paul Moore, linux-fsdevel, stable

On 10/02/2018 11:58 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:18:30PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> 
> No.  With the side of Hell, No.  The bug is real, but this is
> not the way to fix it.
> 
> First of all, it's still broken - e.g. mount something on a
> subdirectory and watch what that thing will do to it.  And
> anyone who has permission to reload policy _will_ have one
> for mount.
> 
> And yes, debugfs_remove() suffers the same problem.  Frankly, the
> only wish debugfs_remove() implementation inspires is to shoot it
> before it breeds.  Which is the second problem with that approach -
> such stuff really shouldn't be duplicated in individual filesystems.
> 
> Don't copy (let along open-code) d_walk() in there.  The guts of
> dcache tree handling are subtle enough (and had more than enough
> locking bugs over the years) to make spreading the dependencies
> on its details all over the tree an invitation for massive PITA
> down the road.
> 
> I have beginnings of patch doing that for debugfs; the same thing
> should be usable for selinuxfs as well.  However, the main problem
> with selinuxfs wrt policy loading is different - what to do if
> sel_make_policy_nodes() fails halfway through?  And what to do
> with accesses to the unholy mix of old and new nodes we currently
> have left behind?
> 
> Before security_load_policy() we don't know which nodes to create;
> after it we have nothing to fall back onto.  It looks like we
> need to split security_load_policy() into "load", "switch over" and
> "free old" parts, so that the whole thing would look like
> 	load
> 	create new directory trees, unconnected to the root so
> they couldn't be reached by lookups until we are done
> 	switch over
> 	move the new directory trees in place
> 	kill the old trees (using that invalidate+genocide carefully
> combination)
> 	free old data structures
> with failures upon the first two steps handled by killing whatever detached
> trees we'd created (if any) and freeing the new data structures.
> 
> However, I'd really like to have the folks familiar with selinux guts to
> comment upon the feasibility of the above.  AFAICS, nobody has ever seriously
> looked at that code wrt graceful error handling, etc.[*], so I'm not happy
> with making inferences from what the existing code is doing.

That sounds viable to me as an approach, and hopefully the 
splitting/refactoring of security_load_policy() will be a bit easier now 
that the global selinux state is wrapped in the selinux_state structure 
and explicitly passed around.

> 
> If you are interested in getting selinuxfs into sane shape, that would
> be a good place to start.  As for the kernel-side rm -rf (which is what
> debugfs_remove() et.al. are trying to be)...
> 	* it absolutely needs to be in fs/*.c - either dcache or libfs.
> It's too closely tied to dcache guts to do otherwise.
> 	* as the first step it needs to do d_invalidate(), to get rid of
> anything that might be mounted on it and to prevent new mounts from appearing.
> It's rather tempting to unhash everything in the victim tree at the same
> time, but that needs to be done with care - I'm still not entirely happy
> with the solution I've got in that area.  Alternative is to unhash them
> on the way out of subtree.  simple_unlink()/simple_rmdir() are wrong
> there - we don't want to bother with the parent's timestamps as we go,
> for one thing; that should be done only once to parent of the root of
> that subtree.  For another, we bloody well enforce the emptiness ourselves,
> so this simple_empty() is pointless (especially since we have no choice other
> than ignoring it anyway).
> 
> BTW, another selinuxfs unpleasantness is, the things like sel_write_enforce()
> don't have any exclusion against themselves, let alone the policy reloads.
> And quite a few of them obviously expect that e.g. permission check is done
> against the same policy the operation will apply to, not the previous one.
> That one definitely needs selinux folks involved.
> 
> [*] not too unreasonably so - anyone who gets to use _that_ as an attack
> vector has already won, so it's not a security problem pretty much by
> definition and running into heavy OOM at the time of policy reload is
> almost certainly going to end up with the userland parts of the entire
> thing not handling failures gracefully.
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-03 15:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-10-02 11:18 [PATCH] selinux: fix race when removing selinuxfs entries Ondrej Mosnacek
2018-10-02 15:58 ` Al Viro
2018-10-03  8:18   ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2018-10-03 13:02   ` Stephen Smalley

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).