From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0CAC04ABB for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2022133F for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:11:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9D2022133F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727693AbeIMQUh (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:20:37 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43772 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726741AbeIMQUh (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:20:37 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2466AFF3; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:11:35 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: peter enderborg Cc: Tetsuo Handa , Paul Moore , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, syzbot+ac488b9811036cea7ea0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Smalley , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: Add __GFP_NOWARN to allocation at str_read() Message-ID: <20180913111135.GA21006@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <000000000000038dab0575476b73@google.com> <9d685700-bc5c-9c2f-7795-56f488d2ea38@sony.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9d685700-bc5c-9c2f-7795-56f488d2ea38@sony.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 13-09-18 09:12:04, peter enderborg wrote: > On 09/13/2018 08:26 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > On 2018/09/13 12:02, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:43 PM Tetsuo Handa > >> wrote: > >>> syzbot is hitting warning at str_read() [1] because len parameter can > >>> become larger than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. We don't need to emit warning for > >>> this case. > >>> > >>> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=7f2f5aad79ea8663c296a2eedb81978401a908f0 > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa > >>> Reported-by: syzbot > >>> --- > >>> security/selinux/ss/policydb.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c > >>> index e9394e7..f4eadd3 100644 > >>> --- a/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c > >>> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/policydb.c > >>> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ static int str_read(char **strp, gfp_t flags, void *fp, u32 len) > >>> if ((len == 0) || (len == (u32)-1)) > >>> return -EINVAL; > >>> > >>> - str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags); > >>> + str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags | __GFP_NOWARN); > >>> if (!str) > >>> return -ENOMEM; > >> Thanks for the patch. > >> > >> My eyes are starting to glaze over a bit chasing down all of the > >> different kmalloc() code paths trying to ensure that this always does > >> the right thing based on size of the allocation and the different slab > >> allocators ... are we sure that this will always return NULL when (len > >> + 1) is greater than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE for the different slab allocator > >> configurations? > >> > > Yes, for (len + 1) cannot become 0 (which causes kmalloc() to return > > ZERO_SIZE_PTR) due to (len == (u32)-1) check above. > > > > The only concern would be whether you want allocation failure messages. > > I assumed you don't need it because we are returning -ENOMEM to the caller. > > > Would it not be better with > >     char *str; > >     if ((len == 0) || (len == (u32)-1) || (len >= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)) >         return -EINVAL; > >     str = kmalloc(len + 1, flags); >     if (!str) >         return -ENOMEM; I strongly suspect that you want kvmalloc rather than kmalloc here. The larger the request the more likely is the allocation to fail. I am not familiar with the code but I assume this is a root only interface so we don't have to worry about nasty users scenario. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs