Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
<syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> syzbot found the following issue on:
>
> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
> git tree:       upstream
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
>
> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

+Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue

The crash was triggered by this test case:

21:55:33 executing program 1:
r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
&(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)

And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691

But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
+So selinux maintainers as well.



> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Call Trace:
>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
>  vfs_fsconfig_locked fs/fsopen.c:265 [inline]
>  __do_sys_fsconfig fs/fsopen.c:439 [inline]
>  __se_sys_fsconfig+0xba9/0xff0 fs/fsopen.c:314
>  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:47
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> RIP: 0033:0x4665d9
> Code: ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 40 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 bc ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> RSP: 002b:00007fe01ae27188 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000001af
> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000056bf80 RCX: 00000000004665d9
> RDX: 00000000200002c0 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000003
> RBP: 00000000004bfcb9 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> R10: 0000000020000300 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000056bf80
> R13: 00007ffd4bb7c5bf R14: 00007fe01ae27300 R15: 0000000000022000
> Modules linked in:
> ---[ end trace 5d7119165725bd63 ]---
> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00000000004e4da0 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506e0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>
>
> ---
> This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
> See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
> syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.
>
> syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
> https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "syzkaller-bugs" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syzkaller-bugs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syzkaller-bugs/0000000000004e5ec705c6318557%40google.com.

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Casey Schaufler]

On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
> <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> syzbot found the following issue on:
>>
>> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
>> git tree:       upstream
>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
>> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
>>
>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue

This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.


>
> The crash was triggered by this test case:
>
> 21:55:33 executing program 1:
> r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
> fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
> &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
>
> And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
>
> But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
> +So selinux maintainers as well.
>
>
>
>> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
>> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
>> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
>> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
>> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
>> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
>> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
>> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
>> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
>> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
>> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>> Call Trace:
>>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
>>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
>>  vfs_fsconfig_locked fs/fsopen.c:265 [inline]
>>  __do_sys_fsconfig fs/fsopen.c:439 [inline]
>>  __se_sys_fsconfig+0xba9/0xff0 fs/fsopen.c:314
>>  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:47
>>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>> RIP: 0033:0x4665d9
>> Code: ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 40 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 bc ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
>> RSP: 002b:00007fe01ae27188 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000001af
>> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000056bf80 RCX: 00000000004665d9
>> RDX: 00000000200002c0 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000003
>> RBP: 00000000004bfcb9 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
>> R10: 0000000020000300 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000056bf80
>> R13: 00007ffd4bb7c5bf R14: 00007fe01ae27300 R15: 0000000000022000
>> Modules linked in:
>> ---[ end trace 5d7119165725bd63 ]---
>> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
>> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
>> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
>> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
>> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
>> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
>> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
>> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> CR2: 00000000004e4da0 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506e0
>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
>> See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
>> syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
>> https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "syzkaller-bugs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syzkaller-bugs+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syzkaller-bugs/0000000000004e5ec705c6318557%40google.com.

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Paul Moore]

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
> > <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> syzbot found the following issue on:
> >>
> >> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
> >> git tree:       upstream
> >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
> >> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
> >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> >> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> >>
> >> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> >> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue
>
> This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
> David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
> may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
> by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.
>
> > The crash was triggered by this test case:
> >
> > 21:55:33 executing program 1:
> > r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
> > fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
> > &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
> >
> > And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
> >
> > But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
> > +So selinux maintainers as well.
> >
> >> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> >> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> >> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
> >> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> >> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> >> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> >> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> >> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> >> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> >> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> >> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> >> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> >> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> >> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
> >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> >> Call Trace:
> >>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
> >>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117

It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's
look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem
is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks.  In both
the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0
(Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I
don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are
not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from
vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param():

Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 :

  ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
  if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
    /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so
     * don't pass to the FS.
     */
    return ret;

  if (fc->ops->parse_param) {
    ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param);
    if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
      return ret;
  }

> >>  vfs_fsconfig_locked fs/fsopen.c:265 [inline]
> >>  __do_sys_fsconfig fs/fsopen.c:439 [inline]
> >>  __se_sys_fsconfig+0xba9/0xff0 fs/fsopen.c:314
> >>  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:47
> >>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >> RIP: 0033:0x4665d9
> >> Code: ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 40 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 bc ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> >> RSP: 002b:00007fe01ae27188 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000001af
> >> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000056bf80 RCX: 00000000004665d9
> >> RDX: 00000000200002c0 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000003
> >> RBP: 00000000004bfcb9 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> >> R10: 0000000020000300 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000056bf80
> >> R13: 00007ffd4bb7c5bf R14: 00007fe01ae27300 R15: 0000000000022000
> >> Modules linked in:
> >> ---[ end trace 5d7119165725bd63 ]---

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
> > > <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> syzbot found the following issue on:
> > >>
> > >> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
> > >> git tree:       upstream
> > >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
> > >> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
> > >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> > >> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > >>
> > >> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > >> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue
> >
> > This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
> > David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
> > may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
> > by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.
> >
> > > The crash was triggered by this test case:
> > >
> > > 21:55:33 executing program 1:
> > > r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
> > > fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
> > > &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
> > >
> > > And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
> > >
> > > But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
> > > +So selinux maintainers as well.
> > >
> > >> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> > >> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> > >> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
> > >> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> > >> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> > >> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> > >> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> > >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> > >> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> > >> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> > >> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> > >> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> > >> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > >> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > >> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
> > >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > >> Call Trace:
> > >>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
> > >>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
>
> It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's
> look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem
> is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks.  In both
> the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0
> (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I
> don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are
> not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from
> vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param():
>
> Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 :
>
>   ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
>   if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
>     /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so
>      * don't pass to the FS.
>      */
>     return ret;
>
>   if (fc->ops->parse_param) {
>     ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param);
>     if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
>       return ret;
>   }

Hi Paul,

You are right.
I almost connected the dots, but not exactly.
Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in
smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and
takes ownership of the string).

I don't see how the crash happened...



> > >>  vfs_fsconfig_locked fs/fsopen.c:265 [inline]
> > >>  __do_sys_fsconfig fs/fsopen.c:439 [inline]
> > >>  __se_sys_fsconfig+0xba9/0xff0 fs/fsopen.c:314
> > >>  do_syscall_64+0x3f/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:47
> > >>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > >> RIP: 0033:0x4665d9
> > >> Code: ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 40 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 bc ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > >> RSP: 002b:00007fe01ae27188 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000001af
> > >> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000056bf80 RCX: 00000000004665d9
> > >> RDX: 00000000200002c0 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > >> RBP: 00000000004bfcb9 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > >> R10: 0000000020000300 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000056bf80
> > >> R13: 00007ffd4bb7c5bf R14: 00007fe01ae27300 R15: 0000000000022000
> > >> Modules linked in:
> > >> ---[ end trace 5d7119165725bd63 ]---
>
> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:52 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
> > > > <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> syzbot found the following issue on:
> > > >>
> > > >> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
> > > >> git tree:       upstream
> > > >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
> > > >> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
> > > >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> > > >> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
> > > >>
> > > >> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > > >> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue
> > >
> > > This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
> > > David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
> > > may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
> > > by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.
> > >
> > > > The crash was triggered by this test case:
> > > >
> > > > 21:55:33 executing program 1:
> > > > r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
> > > > fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
> > > > &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
> > > >
> > > > And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
> > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
> > > >
> > > > But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
> > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
> > > > +So selinux maintainers as well.
> > > >
> > > >> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> > > >> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> > > >> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
> > > >> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> > > >> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> > > >> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> > > >> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> > > >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> > > >> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> > > >> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> > > >> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> > > >> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> > > >> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > >> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > >> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
> > > >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > >> Call Trace:
> > > >>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
> > > >>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
> >
> > It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's
> > look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem
> > is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks.  In both
> > the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0
> > (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I
> > don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are
> > not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from
> > vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param():
> >
> > Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 :
> >
> >   ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
> >   if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
> >     /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so
> >      * don't pass to the FS.
> >      */
> >     return ret;
> >
> >   if (fc->ops->parse_param) {
> >     ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param);
> >     if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
> >       return ret;
> >   }
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> You are right.
> I almost connected the dots, but not exactly.
> Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in
> smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and
> takes ownership of the string).
>
> I don't see how the crash happened...

FWIW, I poked around a bit too and couldn't see anything obvious
either, but I can't pretend to know as much about the VFS layer as the
VFS folks.  Hopefully they might have better luck.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 08:50:44AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:52 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
> > > > > <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Hello,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> syzbot found the following issue on:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
> > > > >> git tree:       upstream
> > > > >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
> > > > >> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
> > > > >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> > > > >> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > > > >> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > > +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue
> > > >
> > > > This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
> > > > David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
> > > > may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
> > > > by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.
> > > >
> > > > > The crash was triggered by this test case:
> > > > >
> > > > > 21:55:33 executing program 1:
> > > > > r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
> > > > > fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
> > > > > &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
> > > > >
> > > > > And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
> > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
> > > > >
> > > > > But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
> > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
> > > > > +So selinux maintainers as well.
> > > > >
> > > > >> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> > > > >> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> > > > >> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
> > > > >> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> > > > >> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> > > > >> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> > > > >> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> > > > >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> > > > >> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> > > > >> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> > > > >> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> > > > >> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> > > > >> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > > >> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > > >> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
> > > > >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > > >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > > >> Call Trace:
> > > > >>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
> > > > >>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
> > >
> > > It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's
> > > look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem
> > > is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks.  In both
> > > the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0
> > > (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I
> > > don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are
> > > not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from
> > > vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param():
> > >
> > > Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 :
> > >
> > >   ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
> > >   if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
> > >     /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so
> > >      * don't pass to the FS.
> > >      */
> > >     return ret;
> > >
> > >   if (fc->ops->parse_param) {
> > >     ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param);
> > >     if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
> > >       return ret;
> > >   }
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > You are right.
> > I almost connected the dots, but not exactly.
> > Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in
> > smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and
> > takes ownership of the string).
> >
> > I don't see how the crash happened...
> 
> FWIW, I poked around a bit too and couldn't see anything obvious
> either, but I can't pretend to know as much about the VFS layer as the
> VFS folks.  Hopefully they might have better luck.

I'm not sure that's right.
If the smack hook runs first, it will set

param->string = NULL

now the selinux hook runs. But the selinux param hook doesn't end up in
selinux_add_opt() instead it will fail before
opt = fs_parse(fc, selinux_fs_parameters, param, &result);
which will return -ENOPARAM since it's not a selinux option subsequently
causing the crash.

Does that sound plausible?

Christian

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Casey Schaufler]

On 8/27/2021 8:30 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 08:50:44AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:52 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
>>>>>> <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> syzbot found the following issue on:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
>>>>>>> git tree:       upstream
>>>>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
>>>>>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
>>>>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
>>>>>>> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
>>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>>> +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue
>>>>> This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
>>>>> David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
>>>>> may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
>>>>> by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The crash was triggered by this test case:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 21:55:33 executing program 1:
>>>>>> r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
>>>>>> fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
>>>>>> &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
>>>>>> +So selinux maintainers as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
>>>>>>> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
>>>>>>> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
>>>>>>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
>>>>>>> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
>>>>>>> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
>>>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
>>>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
>>>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
>>>>>>> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
>>>>>>> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
>>>>>>> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
>>>>>>> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>>>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>>>>> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
>>>>>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>>>>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>>>>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
>>>>>>>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
>>>> It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's
>>>> look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem
>>>> is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks.  In both
>>>> the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0
>>>> (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I
>>>> don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are
>>>> not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from
>>>> vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param():
>>>>
>>>> Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 :
>>>>
>>>>   ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
>>>>   if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
>>>>     /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so
>>>>      * don't pass to the FS.
>>>>      */
>>>>     return ret;
>>>>
>>>>   if (fc->ops->parse_param) {
>>>>     ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param);
>>>>     if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
>>>>       return ret;
>>>>   }
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> You are right.
>>> I almost connected the dots, but not exactly.
>>> Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in
>>> smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and
>>> takes ownership of the string).
>>>
>>> I don't see how the crash happened...
>> FWIW, I poked around a bit too and couldn't see anything obvious
>> either, but I can't pretend to know as much about the VFS layer as the
>> VFS folks.  Hopefully they might have better luck.
> I'm not sure that's right.
> If the smack hook runs first, it will set
>
> param->string = NULL
>
> now the selinux hook runs. But the selinux param hook doesn't end up in
> selinux_add_opt() instead it will fail before
> opt = fs_parse(fc, selinux_fs_parameters, param, &result);
> which will return -ENOPARAM since it's not a selinux option subsequently
> causing the crash.
>
> Does that sound plausible?

No. You can't (currently) have both Smack and SELinux enabled at
the same time. If you're invoking both the Smack hook and the SELinux
hook you're doing somthing way wrong.

>
> Christian

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Christian Brauner]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:40:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/27/2021 8:30 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 08:50:44AM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:52 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 4:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:16 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/2/2021 10:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 AM syzbot
> >>>>>> <syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> syzbot found the following issue on:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> HEAD commit:    62fb9874 Linux 5.13
> >>>>>>> git tree:       upstream
> >>>>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12ffa118300000
> >>>>>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=19404adbea015a58
> >>>>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> >>>>>>> compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> >>>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >>>>>> +Casey for what looks like a smackfs issue
> >>>>> This is from the new mount infrastructure introduced by
> >>>>> David Howells in November 2018. It makes sense that there
> >>>>> may be a problem in SELinux as well, as the code was introduced
> >>>>> by the same developer at the same time for the same purpose.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The crash was triggered by this test case:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 21:55:33 executing program 1:
> >>>>>> r0 = fsopen(&(0x7f0000000040)='ext3\x00', 0x1)
> >>>>>> fsconfig$FSCONFIG_SET_STRING(r0, 0x1, &(0x7f00000002c0)='smackfsroot',
> >>>>>> &(0x7f0000000300)='default_permissions', 0x0)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And I think the issue is in smack_fs_context_parse_param():
> >>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/smack/smack_lsm.c#L691
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But it seems that selinux_fs_context_parse_param() contains the same issue:
> >>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/security/selinux/hooks.c#L2919
> >>>>>> +So selinux maintainers as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> >>>>>>> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> >>>>>>> CPU: 0 PID: 20300 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.13.0-syzkaller #0
> >>>>>>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> >>>>>>> RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
> >>>>>>> Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
> >>>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001dafd00 EFLAGS: 00010246
> >>>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000013 RCX: dffffc0000000000
> >>>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000013 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
> >>>>>>> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e171bf R09: ffffffff81e16f95
> >>>>>>> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88807e96b880 R12: dffffc0000000000
> >>>>>>> R13: ffff888020894000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
> >>>>>>> FS:  00007fe01ae27700(0000) GS:ffff8880b9a00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> >>>>>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> >>>>>>> CR2: 00000000005645a8 CR3: 0000000018afc000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
> >>>>>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> >>>>>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> >>>>>>> Call Trace:
> >>>>>>>  legacy_parse_param+0x461/0x7e0 fs/fs_context.c:537
> >>>>>>>  vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1e5/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:117
> >>>> It's Sunday morning and perhaps my mind is not yet in a "hey, let's
> >>>> look at VFS kernel code!" mindset, but I'm not convinced the problem
> >>>> is the 'param->string = NULL' assignment in the LSM hooks.  In both
> >>>> the case of SELinux and Smack that code ends up returning either a 0
> >>>> (Smack) or a 1 (SELinux) - that's a little odd in it's own way, but I
> >>>> don't believe it is relevant here - either way these return values are
> >>>> not equal to -ENOPARAM so we should end up returning early from
> >>>> vfs_parse_fs_param before it calls down into legacy_parse_param():
> >>>>
> >>>> Taken from https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/fs_context.c#L109 :
> >>>>
> >>>>   ret = security_fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
> >>>>   if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
> >>>>     /* Param belongs to the LSM or is disallowed by the LSM; so
> >>>>      * don't pass to the FS.
> >>>>      */
> >>>>     return ret;
> >>>>
> >>>>   if (fc->ops->parse_param) {
> >>>>     ret = fc->ops->parse_param(fc, param);
> >>>>     if (ret != -ENOPARAM)
> >>>>       return ret;
> >>>>   }
> >>> Hi Paul,
> >>>
> >>> You are right.
> >>> I almost connected the dots, but not exactly.
> >>> Now that I read more code around, setting "param->string = NULL" in
> >>> smack_fs_context_parse_param() looks correct to me (the fs copies and
> >>> takes ownership of the string).
> >>>
> >>> I don't see how the crash happened...
> >> FWIW, I poked around a bit too and couldn't see anything obvious
> >> either, but I can't pretend to know as much about the VFS layer as the
> >> VFS folks.  Hopefully they might have better luck.
> > I'm not sure that's right.
> > If the smack hook runs first, it will set
> >
> > param->string = NULL
> >
> > now the selinux hook runs. But the selinux param hook doesn't end up in
> > selinux_add_opt() instead it will fail before
> > opt = fs_parse(fc, selinux_fs_parameters, param, &result);
> > which will return -ENOPARAM since it's not a selinux option subsequently
> > causing the crash.
> >
> > Does that sound plausible?
> 
> No. You can't (currently) have both Smack and SELinux enabled at

Ah, I thought that already worked. :)

I'm EOD here but I'll try to look closer tomorrow or after the weekend.

Christian

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[syzbot]

syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:

HEAD commit:    77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=10636bde300000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
compiler:       Debian clang version 11.0.1-2, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.1
syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xdffffc0000000000: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
CPU: 0 PID: 8435 Comm: syz-executor272 Not tainted 5.14.0-rc7-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000d9f7d08 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: ffff88801c1f3880
RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e3db46 R09: ffffffff81e3d8e2
R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88801c1f3880 R12: dffffc0000000000
R13: 1ffff92001b3efcc R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
FS:  0000000000deb300(0000) GS:ffff8880b9c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 0000000020000044 CR3: 0000000037173000 CR4: 00000000001506f0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
 legacy_parse_param+0x49b/0x810 fs/fs_context.c:555
 vfs_parse_fs_param+0x1df/0x460 fs/fs_context.c:146
 vfs_fsconfig_locked fs/fsopen.c:265 [inline]
 __do_sys_fsconfig fs/fsopen.c:439 [inline]
 __se_sys_fsconfig+0xba9/0xff0 fs/fsopen.c:314
 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
 do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x43ee69
Code: 28 c3 e8 2a 14 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 c0 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
RSP: 002b:00007ffc5e9e0b98 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000001af
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000400488 RCX: 000000000043ee69
RDX: 0000000020000080 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000003
RBP: 0000000000402e50 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000400488
R10: 00000000200000c0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000402ee0
R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 00000000004ac018 R15: 0000000000400488
Modules linked in:
---[ end trace 74baf661f3b47b0a ]---
RIP: 0010:memchr+0x2f/0x70 lib/string.c:1054
Code: 41 54 53 48 89 d3 41 89 f7 45 31 f6 49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 db 74 3b 48 89 fd 48 89 f8 48 c1 e8 03 <42> 0f b6 04 20 84 c0 75 0f 48 ff cb 48 8d 7d 01 44 38 7d 00 75 db
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000d9f7d08 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: ffff88801c1f3880
RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 000000000000002c RDI: 0000000000000000
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff81e3db46 R09: ffffffff81e3d8e2
R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88801c1f3880 R12: dffffc0000000000
R13: 1ffff92001b3efcc R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000002c
FS:  0000000000deb300(0000) GS:ffff8880b9d00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007fed5f8146c0 CR3: 0000000037173000 CR4: 00000000001506e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
----------------
Code disassembly (best guess):
   0:	41 54                	push   %r12
   2:	53                   	push   %rbx
   3:	48 89 d3             	mov    %rdx,%rbx
   6:	41 89 f7             	mov    %esi,%r15d
   9:	45 31 f6             	xor    %r14d,%r14d
   c:	49 bc 00 00 00 00 00 	movabs $0xdffffc0000000000,%r12
  13:	fc ff df
  16:	0f 1f 44 00 00       	nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
  1b:	48 85 db             	test   %rbx,%rbx
  1e:	74 3b                	je     0x5b
  20:	48 89 fd             	mov    %rdi,%rbp
  23:	48 89 f8             	mov    %rdi,%rax
  26:	48 c1 e8 03          	shr    $0x3,%rax
* 2a:	42 0f b6 04 20       	movzbl (%rax,%r12,1),%eax <-- trapping instruction
  2f:	84 c0                	test   %al,%al
  31:	75 0f                	jne    0x42
  33:	48 ff cb             	dec    %rbx
  36:	48 8d 7d 01          	lea    0x1(%rbp),%rdi
  3a:	44 38 7d 00          	cmp    %r15b,0x0(%rbp)
  3e:	75 db                	jne    0x1b

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[syzbot]

syzbot has bisected this issue to:

commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000

    security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook

bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
git tree:       upstream
final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000

Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")

For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Christian Brauner]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:11:18PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
> 
> commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
> Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000
> 
>     security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook
> 
> bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
> start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
> git tree:       upstream
> final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000
> 
> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")
> 
> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection

So ok, this seems somewhat clear now. When smack and 
CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y
is selected the bpf LSM will register NOP handlers including

bpf_lsm_fs_context_fs_param()

for the

fs_context_fs_param

LSM hook. The bpf LSM runs last, i.e. after smack according to:

CONFIG_LSM="landlock,lockdown,yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,smack,bpf"

in the appended config. The smack hook runs and sets

param->string = NULL

then the bpf NOP handler runs returning -ENOPARM indicating to the vfs
parameter parser that this is not a security module option so it should
proceed processing the parameter subsequently causing the crash because
param->string is not allowed to be NULL (Which the vfs parameter parser
verifies early in fsconfig().).

If you take the appended syzkaller config and additionally select
kprobes you can observe this by registering bpf kretprobes for:
security_fs_context_parse_param()
smack_fs_context_parse_param()
bpf_lsm_fs_context_parse_param()
in different terminal windows and then running the syzkaller provided
reproducer:

root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:smack_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
Attaching 1 probe...
returned: 0

root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:bpf_lsm_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
Attaching 1 probe...
returned: -519

root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:security_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
Attaching 1 probe...
returned: -519

^^^^^
This will ultimately tell the vfs to move on causing the crash because
param->string is null at that point.

Unless I missed something why that can't happen.

Christian

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Casey Schaufler]

On 8/30/2021 5:23 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:11:18PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
>>
>> commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
>> Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>> Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000
>>
>>     security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook
>>
>> bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
>> start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
>> git tree:       upstream
>> final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
>> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000
>>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>> Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")
>>
>> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
> So ok, this seems somewhat clear now. When smack and 
> CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y
> is selected the bpf LSM will register NOP handlers including
>
> bpf_lsm_fs_context_fs_param()
>
> for the
>
> fs_context_fs_param
>
> LSM hook. The bpf LSM runs last, i.e. after smack according to:
>
> CONFIG_LSM="landlock,lockdown,yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,smack,bpf"
>
> in the appended config. The smack hook runs and sets
>
> param->string = NULL
>
> then the bpf NOP handler runs returning -ENOPARM indicating to the vfs
> parameter parser that this is not a security module option so it should
> proceed processing the parameter subsequently causing the crash because
> param->string is not allowed to be NULL (Which the vfs parameter parser
> verifies early in fsconfig().).

The security_fs_context_parse_param() function is incorrectly
implemented using the call_int_hook() macro. It should return
zero if any of the modules return zero. It does not follow the
usual failure model of LSM hooks. It could be argued that the
code was fine before the addition of the BPF hook, but it was
going to fail as soon as any two security modules provided
mount options.

Regardless, I will have a patch later today. Thank you for
tracking this down.

>
> If you take the appended syzkaller config and additionally select
> kprobes you can observe this by registering bpf kretprobes for:
> security_fs_context_parse_param()
> smack_fs_context_parse_param()
> bpf_lsm_fs_context_parse_param()
> in different terminal windows and then running the syzkaller provided
> reproducer:
>
> root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:smack_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
> Attaching 1 probe...
> returned: 0
>
> root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:bpf_lsm_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
> Attaching 1 probe...
> returned: -519
>
> root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:security_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
> Attaching 1 probe...
> returned: -519
>
> ^^^^^
> This will ultimately tell the vfs to move on causing the crash because
> param->string is null at that point.
>
> Unless I missed something why that can't happen.
>
> Christian

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Casey Schaufler]

On 8/30/2021 7:25 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/30/2021 5:23 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:11:18PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
>>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
>>>
>>> commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
>>> Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>>> Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000
>>>
>>>     security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook
>>>
>>> bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
>>> start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
>>> git tree:       upstream
>>> final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
>>> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
>>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")
>>>
>>> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
>> So ok, this seems somewhat clear now. When smack and 
>> CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y
>> is selected the bpf LSM will register NOP handlers including
>>
>> bpf_lsm_fs_context_fs_param()
>>
>> for the
>>
>> fs_context_fs_param
>>
>> LSM hook. The bpf LSM runs last, i.e. after smack according to:
>>
>> CONFIG_LSM="landlock,lockdown,yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,smack,bpf"
>>
>> in the appended config. The smack hook runs and sets
>>
>> param->string = NULL
>>
>> then the bpf NOP handler runs returning -ENOPARM indicating to the vfs
>> parameter parser that this is not a security module option so it should
>> proceed processing the parameter subsequently causing the crash because
>> param->string is not allowed to be NULL (Which the vfs parameter parser
>> verifies early in fsconfig().).
> The security_fs_context_parse_param() function is incorrectly
> implemented using the call_int_hook() macro. It should return
> zero if any of the modules return zero. It does not follow the
> usual failure model of LSM hooks. It could be argued that the
> code was fine before the addition of the BPF hook, but it was
> going to fail as soon as any two security modules provided
> mount options.
>
> Regardless, I will have a patch later today. Thank you for
> tracking this down.

Here's my proposed patch. I'll tidy it up with a proper
commit message if it looks alright to y'all. I've tested
with Smack and with and without BPF.


 security/security.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 09533cbb7221..3cf0faaf1c5b 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -885,7 +885,19 @@ int security_fs_context_dup(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_context *src_fc)
 
 int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
 {
-	return call_int_hook(fs_context_parse_param, -ENOPARAM, fc, param);
+	struct security_hook_list *hp;
+	int trc;
+	int rc = -ENOPARAM;
+
+	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.fs_context_parse_param,
+			     list) {
+		trc = hp->hook.fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
+		if (trc == 0)
+			rc = 0;
+		else if (trc != -ENOPARAM)
+			return trc;
+	}
+	return rc;
 }
 
 int security_sb_alloc(struct super_block *sb)

>
>> If you take the appended syzkaller config and additionally select
>> kprobes you can observe this by registering bpf kretprobes for:
>> security_fs_context_parse_param()
>> smack_fs_context_parse_param()
>> bpf_lsm_fs_context_parse_param()
>> in different terminal windows and then running the syzkaller provided
>> reproducer:
>>
>> root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:smack_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
>> Attaching 1 probe...
>> returned: 0
>>
>> root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:bpf_lsm_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
>> Attaching 1 probe...
>> returned: -519
>>
>> root@f2-vm:~# bpftrace -e 'kretprobe:security_fs_context_parse_param { printf("returned: %d\n", retval); }'
>> Attaching 1 probe...
>> returned: -519
>>
>> ^^^^^
>> This will ultimately tell the vfs to move on causing the crash because
>> param->string is null at that point.
>>
>> Unless I missed something why that can't happen.
>>
>> Christian

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Christian Brauner]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:40:57AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/30/2021 7:25 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 8/30/2021 5:23 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:11:18PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> >>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
> >>>
> >>> commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
> >>> Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> >>> Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000
> >>>
> >>>     security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook
> >>>
> >>> bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
> >>> start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
> >>> git tree:       upstream
> >>> final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
> >>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
> >>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
> >>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> >>> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
> >>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >>> Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")
> >>>
> >>> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
> >> So ok, this seems somewhat clear now. When smack and 
> >> CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y
> >> is selected the bpf LSM will register NOP handlers including
> >>
> >> bpf_lsm_fs_context_fs_param()
> >>
> >> for the
> >>
> >> fs_context_fs_param
> >>
> >> LSM hook. The bpf LSM runs last, i.e. after smack according to:
> >>
> >> CONFIG_LSM="landlock,lockdown,yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,smack,bpf"
> >>
> >> in the appended config. The smack hook runs and sets
> >>
> >> param->string = NULL
> >>
> >> then the bpf NOP handler runs returning -ENOPARM indicating to the vfs
> >> parameter parser that this is not a security module option so it should
> >> proceed processing the parameter subsequently causing the crash because
> >> param->string is not allowed to be NULL (Which the vfs parameter parser
> >> verifies early in fsconfig().).
> > The security_fs_context_parse_param() function is incorrectly
> > implemented using the call_int_hook() macro. It should return
> > zero if any of the modules return zero. It does not follow the
> > usual failure model of LSM hooks. It could be argued that the
> > code was fine before the addition of the BPF hook, but it was
> > going to fail as soon as any two security modules provided
> > mount options.
> >
> > Regardless, I will have a patch later today. Thank you for
> > tracking this down.
> 
> Here's my proposed patch. I'll tidy it up with a proper
> commit message if it looks alright to y'all. I've tested
> with Smack and with and without BPF.

Looks good to me.
On question, in contrast to smack, selinux returns 1 instead of 0 on
success. So selinux would cause an early return preventing other hooks
from running. Just making sure that this is intentional.

Iirc, this would mean that selinux causes fsconfig() to return a
positive value to userspace which I think is a bug; likely in selinux.
So I think selinux should either return 0 or the security hook itself
needs to overwrite a positive value with a sensible errno that can be
seen by userspace.

> 
> 
>  security/security.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> index 09533cbb7221..3cf0faaf1c5b 100644
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@ -885,7 +885,19 @@ int security_fs_context_dup(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_context *src_fc)
>  
>  int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
>  {
> -	return call_int_hook(fs_context_parse_param, -ENOPARAM, fc, param);
> +	struct security_hook_list *hp;
> +	int trc;
> +	int rc = -ENOPARAM;
> +
> +	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.fs_context_parse_param,
> +			     list) {
> +		trc = hp->hook.fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
> +		if (trc == 0)
> +			rc = 0;
> +		else if (trc != -ENOPARAM)
> +			return trc;
> +	}
> +	return rc;
>  }
>  
>  int security_sb_alloc(struct super_block *sb)

<snip>

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Casey Schaufler]

On 8/30/2021 9:57 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:40:57AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 8/30/2021 7:25 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2021 5:23 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:11:18PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
>>>>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
>>>>> Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>>>>> Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000
>>>>>
>>>>>     security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook
>>>>>
>>>>> bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
>>>>> start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
>>>>> git tree:       upstream
>>>>> final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
>>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
>>>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
>>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
>>>>> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
>>>>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>> Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")
>>>>>
>>>>> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
>>>> So ok, this seems somewhat clear now. When smack and 
>>>> CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y
>>>> is selected the bpf LSM will register NOP handlers including
>>>>
>>>> bpf_lsm_fs_context_fs_param()
>>>>
>>>> for the
>>>>
>>>> fs_context_fs_param
>>>>
>>>> LSM hook. The bpf LSM runs last, i.e. after smack according to:
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_LSM="landlock,lockdown,yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,smack,bpf"
>>>>
>>>> in the appended config. The smack hook runs and sets
>>>>
>>>> param->string = NULL
>>>>
>>>> then the bpf NOP handler runs returning -ENOPARM indicating to the vfs
>>>> parameter parser that this is not a security module option so it should
>>>> proceed processing the parameter subsequently causing the crash because
>>>> param->string is not allowed to be NULL (Which the vfs parameter parser
>>>> verifies early in fsconfig().).
>>> The security_fs_context_parse_param() function is incorrectly
>>> implemented using the call_int_hook() macro. It should return
>>> zero if any of the modules return zero. It does not follow the
>>> usual failure model of LSM hooks. It could be argued that the
>>> code was fine before the addition of the BPF hook, but it was
>>> going to fail as soon as any two security modules provided
>>> mount options.
>>>
>>> Regardless, I will have a patch later today. Thank you for
>>> tracking this down.
>> Here's my proposed patch. I'll tidy it up with a proper
>> commit message if it looks alright to y'all. I've tested
>> with Smack and with and without BPF.
> Looks good to me.
> On question, in contrast to smack, selinux returns 1 instead of 0 on
> success. So selinux would cause an early return preventing other hooks
> from running. Just making sure that this is intentional.
>
> Iirc, this would mean that selinux causes fsconfig() to return a
> positive value to userspace which I think is a bug; likely in selinux.
> So I think selinux should either return 0 or the security hook itself
> needs to overwrite a positive value with a sensible errno that can be
> seen by userspace.

I think that I agree. The SELinux and Smack versions of the
hook are almost identical except for setting rc to 1 in the
SELinux case. And returning 1 makes no sense if you follow
the callers back. David Howells wrote both the SELinux and
Smack versions. David - why are they different? which is correct?

>
>>
>>  security/security.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>> index 09533cbb7221..3cf0faaf1c5b 100644
>> --- a/security/security.c
>> +++ b/security/security.c
>> @@ -885,7 +885,19 @@ int security_fs_context_dup(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_context *src_fc)
>>  
>>  int security_fs_context_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
>>  {
>> -	return call_int_hook(fs_context_parse_param, -ENOPARAM, fc, param);
>> +	struct security_hook_list *hp;
>> +	int trc;
>> +	int rc = -ENOPARAM;
>> +
>> +	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.fs_context_parse_param,
>> +			     list) {
>> +		trc = hp->hook.fs_context_parse_param(fc, param);
>> +		if (trc == 0)
>> +			rc = 0;
>> +		else if (trc != -ENOPARAM)
>> +			return trc;
>> +	}
>> +	return rc;
>>  }
>>  
>>  int security_sb_alloc(struct super_block *sb)
> <snip>

Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in legacy_parse_param

[Christian Brauner]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:41:29AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/30/2021 9:57 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:40:57AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 8/30/2021 7:25 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>> On 8/30/2021 5:23 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 07:11:18PM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> >>>>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> commit 54261af473be4c5481f6196064445d2945f2bdab
> >>>>> Author: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> >>>>> Date:   Thu Apr 30 15:52:40 2020 +0000
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook
> >>>>>
> >>>>> bisection log:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=160c5d75300000
> >>>>> start commit:   77dd11439b86 Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2021-08-27' of git://ano..
> >>>>> git tree:       upstream
> >>>>> final oops:     https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=150c5d75300000
> >>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=110c5d75300000
> >>>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=2fd902af77ff1e56
> >>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d1e3b1d92d25abf97943
> >>>>> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=126d084d300000
> >>>>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16216eb1300000
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d1e3b1d92d25abf97943@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >>>>> Fixes: 54261af473be ("security: Fix the default value of fs_context_parse_param hook")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
> >>>> So ok, this seems somewhat clear now. When smack and 
> >>>> CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y
> >>>> is selected the bpf LSM will register NOP handlers including
> >>>>
> >>>> bpf_lsm_fs_context_fs_param()
> >>>>
> >>>> for the
> >>>>
> >>>> fs_context_fs_param
> >>>>
> >>>> LSM hook. The bpf LSM runs last, i.e. after smack according to:
> >>>>
> >>>> CONFIG_LSM="landlock,lockdown,yama,safesetid,integrity,tomoyo,smack,bpf"
> >>>>
> >>>> in the appended config. The smack hook runs and sets
> >>>>
> >>>> param->string = NULL
> >>>>
> >>>> then the bpf NOP handler runs returning -ENOPARM indicating to the vfs
> >>>> parameter parser that this is not a security module option so it should
> >>>> proceed processing the parameter subsequently causing the crash because
> >>>> param->string is not allowed to be NULL (Which the vfs parameter parser
> >>>> verifies early in fsconfig().).
> >>> The security_fs_context_parse_param() function is incorrectly
> >>> implemented using the call_int_hook() macro. It should return
> >>> zero if any of the modules return zero. It does not follow the
> >>> usual failure model of LSM hooks. It could be argued that the
> >>> code was fine before the addition of the BPF hook, but it was
> >>> going to fail as soon as any two security modules provided
> >>> mount options.
> >>>
> >>> Regardless, I will have a patch later today. Thank you for
> >>> tracking this down.
> >> Here's my proposed patch. I'll tidy it up with a proper
> >> commit message if it looks alright to y'all. I've tested
> >> with Smack and with and without BPF.
> > Looks good to me.
> > On question, in contrast to smack, selinux returns 1 instead of 0 on
> > success. So selinux would cause an early return preventing other hooks
> > from running. Just making sure that this is intentional.
> >
> > Iirc, this would mean that selinux causes fsconfig() to return a
> > positive value to userspace which I think is a bug; likely in selinux.
> > So I think selinux should either return 0 or the security hook itself
> > needs to overwrite a positive value with a sensible errno that can be
> > seen by userspace.
> 
> I think that I agree. The SELinux and Smack versions of the
> hook are almost identical except for setting rc to 1 in the
> SELinux case. And returning 1 makes no sense if you follow
> the callers back. David Howells wrote both the SELinux and
> Smack versions. David - why are they different? which is correct?

The documentation for fs_context_parse_param notes:

 * @fs_context_parse_param:
 *	Userspace provided a parameter to configure a superblock.  The LSM may
 *	reject it with an error and may use it for itself, in which case it
 *	should return 0; otherwise it should return -ENOPARAM to pass it on to
 *	the filesystem.
 *	@fc indicates the filesystem context.
 *	@param The parameter

So we should simply make selinux return 0 on top of your patch when it
has consumed the option.