On 28/11/16 15:28, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 11/23/2016 05:06 PM, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>> A valid policy would not have two symbols (classes, roles, users...)
>> sharing the same unique identifier. Make policydb_read() rejects such
>> policy files.
>>
>> When ..._val_to_name translation tables were allocated with malloc(),
>> change to calloc() in order to initialize the tables with NULLs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> libsepol/src/conditional.c | 5 +++++
>> libsepol/src/policydb.c | 45
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/libsepol/src/conditional.c b/libsepol/src/conditional.c
>> index e1bc961b2b52..8b2060ce3ff2 100644
>> --- a/libsepol/src/conditional.c
>> +++ b/libsepol/src/conditional.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>> #include <sepol/policydb/conditional.h>
>>
>> #include "private.h"
>> +#include "debug.h"
>>
>> /* move all type rules to top of t/f lists to help kernel on evaluation */
>> static void cond_optimize(cond_av_list_t ** l)
>> @@ -551,6 +552,10 @@ int cond_index_bool(hashtab_key_t key, hashtab_datum_t
>> datum, void *datap)
>> if (!booldatum->s.value || booldatum->s.value > p->p_bools.nprim)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + if (p->p_bool_val_to_name[booldatum->s.value - 1] != NULL ) {
>> + ERR(NULL, "duplicated boolean ID %u", booldatum->s.value);
>
> Similarly, we could pass down the fp->handle from the caller by wrapping
> the policydb_t *p and the sepol_handle_t *handle in an args struct and
> passing that as the (void*) arg to the index functions. Or we could
> live without this level of error messages and just return failure silently.
With the first option, the prototype of indexing functions
policydb_index_...() would need to be updated to take a handle argument.
This change in the API would be propagated to checkpolicy, which uses
these functions.
The second option (return -EINVAL without printing anything) is already
what is done when the value is out of bounds and is much simpler to
implement, so it is the one I prefer. I will send a v2 with this.
[...]
>> @@ -863,6 +867,11 @@ static int class_index(hashtab_key_t key,
>> hashtab_datum_t datum, void *datap)
>> p = (policydb_t *) datap;
>> if (!cladatum->s.value || cladatum->s.value > p->p_classes.nprim)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> + if (p->p_class_val_to_name[cladatum->s.value - 1] != NULL ||
>> + p->class_val_to_struct[cladatum->s.value - 1] != NULL ) {
>
> Do we really need to test both?
As p->..._val_to_struct and p->p_..._val_to_name arrays are always
updated together, I agree one of the test is redundant. I will drop the
second one in the v2 (and I will also remove the extra whitespace which
managed to slip in the condition).
Thanks for your review,
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected].
To get help, send an email containing "help" to [email protected].
