From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753420AbcLML2o (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 06:28:44 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42120 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752682AbcLML2n (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 06:28:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:28:41 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Cong Wang Cc: Mark Salyzyn , LKML , aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Jan Kara Subject: Re: CVE-2016-7097 causes acl leak Message-ID: <20161213112841.GE15362@quack2.suse.cz> References: <3a180415-2f02-c9c0-e1e6-519b5d3115b7@android.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 12-12-16 22:26:09, Cong Wang wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > > > > The leaks were introduced in 9p, gfs2, jfs and xfs drivers only. > > > Only the 9p case is obvious to me: Agreed and the patch below looks good to me. Please make it a proper patch (including changelog, sign-off, etc.) and feel free to add my Reviewed-by tag. > diff --git a/fs/9p/acl.c b/fs/9p/acl.c > index b3c2cc7..082d227 100644 > --- a/fs/9p/acl.c > +++ b/fs/9p/acl.c > @@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ static int v9fs_xattr_set_acl(const struct > xattr_handler *handler, > case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS: > if (acl) { > struct iattr iattr; > + struct posix_acl *old_acl = acl; > > retval = posix_acl_update_mode(inode, > &iattr.ia_mode, &acl); > if (retval) > @@ -287,6 +288,7 @@ static int v9fs_xattr_set_acl(const struct > xattr_handler *handler, > * by the mode bits. So don't > * update ACL. > */ > + posix_acl_release(old_acl); > value = NULL; > size = 0; > } > > > The rest are anti-pattern (modifying parameters on stack via address) > but look correct. I'm not sure what's so unusual about passing a pointer to a local variable (in fact a function argument but they are no different in C) to another function. I agree it is not the most straightforward code but it is not that complicated either... What is important is that a function that acquires a reference to an acl also releases that reference. That is a common pattern. I.e. we don't pass "a reference to an object", we just pass "a pointer to an object" to a function and guarantee the pointer will stay valid while the function runs. What does some function (in our case ->set_acl handler) do with the pointer you passed it is it's internal bussiness. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR