selinux.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <kuba@kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: selinux_netlink_send changes program behavior
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 07:42:26 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <171b1244748.27df.85c95baa4474aabc7814e68940a78392@paul-moore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+b8HiV6KFuAPysZD=5hmyO4QisgxCKi4DHU3CfMPSP=yg@mail.gmail.com>

On April 25, 2020 1:15:05 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:51 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:27 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>>> Hi SELinux maintainers,
>>>
>>> We've hit a case where a developer wasn't able to reproduce a kernel
>>> bug, it turned out to be a difference in behavior between SELinux and
>>> non-SELinux kernels.
>>> Condensed version: a program does sendmmsg on netlink socket with 2
>>> mmsghdr's, first is completely empty/zeros, second contains some
>>> actual payload. Without SELinux the first mmsghdr is treated as no-op
>>> and the kernel processes the second one (triggers bug). However the
>>> SELinux hook does:
>>>
>>> static int selinux_netlink_send(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> {
>>> if (skb->len < NLMSG_HDRLEN) {
>>>  err = -EINVAL;
>>>  goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> and fails processing on the first empty mmsghdr (does not happen
>>> without SELinux).
>>>
>>> Is this difference in behavior intentional/acceptable/should be fixed?
>>
>> From a practical perspective, SELinux is always going to need to do a
>> length check as it needs to peek into the netlink message header for
>> the message type so it can map that to the associated SELinux
>> permissions.  So in that sense, the behavior is intentional and
>> desired; however from a bug-for-bug compatibility perspective ... not
>> so much.
>>
>> Ultimately, my it's-Friday-and-it's-been-a-long-week-ending-in-a-long-day
>> thought is that this was a buggy operation to begin with and the bug
>> was just caught in different parts of the kernel, depending on how it
>> was configured.  It may not be ideal, but I can think of worse things
>> (and arguably SELinux is doing the Right Thing).
>
> +netlink maintainers for intended semantics of empty netlink messages
>
> If it's a bug, or intended behavior depends on the intended
> behavior... which I assume is not documented anywhere officially.

Your original email gave the impression that there was a big in the non-SELinux case; if that is not the case my response changes.

> However, most of the netlink families use netlink_rcv_skb, which does:
>
> int netlink_rcv_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, int (*cb)(struct sk_buff *,
>                           struct nlmsghdr *,
>                           struct netlink_ext_ack *))
> {
>    ...
>    while (skb->len >= nlmsg_total_size(0)) {
>    ...
>       skb_pull(skb, msglen);
>    }
>    return 0;
> }
>
> 1. How intentional is this while loop logic vs sloppy error checking?
> 2. netlink_rcv_skb seems to be able to handle 2+ messages in the same
> skb, while selinux_netlink_send only checks the first one... so can I
> skip SELinux checks by putting a malicious message after a permitted
> one?..




  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-25 11:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-24  8:27 Dmitry Vyukov
2020-04-24 21:51 ` Paul Moore
2020-04-25  5:14   ` Dmitry Vyukov
2020-04-25 11:42     ` Paul Moore [this message]
2020-04-25 12:00       ` Dmitry Vyukov
2020-04-28  1:53         ` Paul Moore

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=171b1244748.27df.85c95baa4474aabc7814e68940a78392@paul-moore.com \
    --to=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com \
    --cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=willemb@google.com \
    --subject='Re: selinux_netlink_send changes program behavior' \
    /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

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).