Re: [PATCH 1/2] SELinux: Fix lsm_get_self_attr()

[Paul Moore]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 5:03 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:05:16PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 3:04 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 08:59:34PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 08:05:45PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > > > selinux_lsm_getattr() may not initialize the value's pointer in some
> > > > > case.  As for proc_pid_attr_read(), initialize this pointer to NULL in
> > > > > selinux_getselfattr() to avoid an UAF in the kfree() call.
> > > >
> > > > Not UAF but NULL pointer dereference (both patches)...
> > >
> > > Well, that may be the result (as observed with the kfree() call), but
> > > the cause is obviously an uninitialized pointer.
> >
> > Adding the SELinux list to the CC line; SELinux folks the original post is here:
> >
> > * https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240223190546.3329966-1-mic@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Thanks for finding this and testing the patch, based on our off-list
> > discussion, do you mind if I add a Suggested-by?  Looking at this a
>
> Sure! I was in a hurry and didn't give it the attention it needed...
>
> > bit more I think we'll want to make a few changes to
> > selinux_lsm_getattr() later, but this patch is a good one for stable
> > as it not only fixes the bug, but it is a trivial one-liner with very
> > low risk.
> >
> > I do think we need to tweak the commit description a bit, what do you
> > think of the following?
> >
> >   "selinux_getselfattr() doesn't properly initialize the string
> >    pointer it passes to selinux_lsm_getattr() which can cause a
> >    problem when an attribute hasn't been explicitly set;
> >    selinux_lsm_getattr() returns 0/success, but does not set or
> >    initialize the string label/attribute.  Failure to properly
> >    initialize the string causes problems later in
> >    selinux_getselfattr() when the function attempts to kfree()
> >    the string."
>
> Much better!

Great :)  I just went ahead and merged this into the lsm/stable-6.8
branch to get this some testing in linux-next, although I'm going to
be *shocked* if this commit causes a regression.  I'll send this up to
Linus early next week, and if John wants me to send the AppArmor patch
I'll do that at the same time.

-- 
paul-moore.com