From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] selinux: Fix selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat()
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 16:27:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhT2RhnXtK3aQuDCFUr5qayH25G8HHjRTJzhWM3H41YNog@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220120214948.3637895-2-smayhew@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:50 PM Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat() is called under the sb_lock spinlock and
> shouldn't be performing any memory allocations. Fix this by parsing the
> sids at the same time we're chopping up the security mount options
> string and then using the pre-parsed sids when doing the comparison.
>
> Fixes: cc274ae7763d ("selinux: fix sleeping function called from invalid context")
> Fixes: 69c4a42d72eb ("lsm,selinux: add new hook to compare new mount to an existing mount")
> Signed-off-by: Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
> ---
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index 5b6895e4fc29..f27ca9e870c0 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -342,6 +342,11 @@ static void inode_free_security(struct inode *inode)
>
> struct selinux_mnt_opts {
> const char *fscontext, *context, *rootcontext, *defcontext;
> + u32 fscontext_sid;
> + u32 context_sid;
> + u32 rootcontext_sid;
> + u32 defcontext_sid;
> + unsigned short preparsed;
> };
Is the preparsed field strictly necessary? Can't we just write the
code to assume that if a given SID field is not SECSID_NULL then it is
valid/preparsed?
> @@ -598,12 +603,11 @@ static int bad_option(struct superblock_security_struct *sbsec, char flag,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int parse_sid(struct super_block *sb, const char *s, u32 *sid,
> - gfp_t gfp)
> +static int parse_sid(struct super_block *sb, const char *s, u32 *sid)
> {
> int rc = security_context_str_to_sid(&selinux_state, s,
> - sid, gfp);
> - if (rc)
> + sid, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (rc && sb != NULL)
> pr_warn("SELinux: security_context_str_to_sid"
> "(%s) failed for (dev %s, type %s) errno=%d\n",
> s, sb->s_id, sb->s_type->name, rc);
It seems like it would still be useful to see the warning even when sb
is NULL, wouldn't you say? How about something like this:
if (rc)
pr_warn("SELinux: blah blah blah (dev %s, type %s) blah blah\n",
(sb ? sb->s_id : "?"),
(sb ? sb->s_type->name : "?"));
> @@ -976,6 +976,9 @@ static int selinux_add_opt(int token, const char *s, void **mnt_opts)
> {
> struct selinux_mnt_opts *opts = *mnt_opts;
> bool is_alloc_opts = false;
> + bool preparse_sid = false;
> + u32 sid;
> + int rc;
>
> if (token == Opt_seclabel)
> /* eaten and completely ignored */
> @@ -991,26 +994,57 @@ static int selinux_add_opt(int token, const char *s, void **mnt_opts)
> is_alloc_opts = true;
> }
>
> + if (selinux_initialized(&selinux_state))
> + preparse_sid = true;
Since there is no looping in selinux_add_opt, and you can only specify
one token/option for a given call to this function, it seems like we
can do away with preparse_sid and just do the selinux_initialized(...)
check directly in the code below, yes?
> switch (token) {
> case Opt_context:
> if (opts->context || opts->defcontext)
> goto err;
> opts->context = s;
> + if (preparse_sid) {
> + rc = parse_sid(NULL, s, &sid);
> + if (rc == 0) {
> + opts->context_sid = sid;
> + opts->preparsed |= CONTEXT_MNT;
> + }
> + }
Is there a reason why we need a dedicated sid variable as opposed to
passing opt->context_sid as the parameter? For example:
rc = parse_sid(NULL, s, &opts->context_sid);
--
paul moore
paul-moore.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-24 23:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-20 21:49 [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] selinux: parse sids earlier to avoid doing memory allocations under spinlock Scott Mayhew
2022-01-20 21:49 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] selinux: Fix selinux_sb_mnt_opts_compat() Scott Mayhew
2022-01-24 21:27 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2022-01-25 17:30 ` Scott Mayhew
2022-01-25 17:45 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-25 18:51 ` Scott Mayhew
2022-01-25 22:32 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-26 20:41 ` Scott Mayhew
2022-01-28 1:53 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-27 9:54 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2022-01-28 2:25 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-31 12:46 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2022-01-31 16:16 ` Paul Moore
2022-02-01 14:38 ` Ondrej Mosnacek
2022-02-01 16:19 ` Paul Moore
2022-01-20 21:49 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] selinux: try to use preparsed sid before calling parse_sid() Scott Mayhew
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAHC9VhT2RhnXtK3aQuDCFUr5qayH25G8HHjRTJzhWM3H41YNog@mail.gmail.com \
--to=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=smayhew@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).