On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Smalley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 10:34 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:44 PM, William Roberts
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Paul Moore <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > From: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
>> > >
>> > > The syzbot/syzkaller automated tests found a problem in
>> > > security_context_to_sid_core() during early boot (before we load
>> > > the
>> > > SELinux policy) where we could potentially feed context strings
>> > > without
>> > > NULL terminators into the strcmp() function.
>> > >
>> > > We already guard against this during normal operation (after the
>> > > SELinux
>> > > policy has been loaded) by making a copy of the context strings
>> > > and
>> > > explicitly adding a NULL terminator to the end.  The patch
>> > > extends this
>> > > protection to the early boot case (no loaded policy) by moving
>> > > the context
>> > > copy earlier in security_context_to_sid_core().
>> > >
>> > > Reported-by: syzbot <[email protected]>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
>> > > ---
>> > >  security/selinux/ss/services.c |   20 ++++++++++----------
>> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> > > b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> > > index 33cfe5d3d6cb..6ec4cdc8af8f 100644
>> > > --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> > > +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
>> > > @@ -1413,27 +1413,27 @@ static int
>> > > security_context_to_sid_core(const char *scontext, u32
>> > > scontext_len,
>> > >         if (!scontext_len)
>> > >                 return -EINVAL;
>> > >
>> > > +       /* Copy the string to allow changes and ensure a NULL
>> > > terminator */
>> > > +       scontext2 = kmalloc(scontext_len + 1, gfp_flags);
>> > > +       if (!scontext2)
>> > > +               return -ENOMEM;
>> > > +       memcpy(scontext2, scontext, scontext_len);
>> > > +       scontext2[scontext_len] = 0;
>> >
>> > Call me crazy, but can't we use kmemdup_nul() here?
>>
>> Crazy good idea ;)
>>
>> I didn't realize that function existed, I'll respin.  Thanks.
>
> Also note that it should be NUL not NULL in the patch subject and
> description.  '\0' vs (void*)0

Yes, thanks.  Muscle memory has me just typing "NULL" everywhere,
regardless of the context.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat

Reply via email to