| Message ID | fa278910-5c99-11dc-c9cb-b88a97592e53@schaufler-ca.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 6/1/2018 10:45 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx > > The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made > incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security > context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support > security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op. > The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a > context, which was never freed. The revised implementation > returns the context correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> Tejun, does this pass your tests? > --- > security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 12 +++++------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c > index 0b414836bebd..5e3beae334a8 100644 > --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c > +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c > @@ -1545,9 +1545,9 @@ static int smack_inode_listsecurity(struct inode *inode, char *buffer, > */ > static void smack_inode_getsecid(struct inode *inode, u32 *secid) > { > - struct inode_smack *isp = inode->i_security; > + struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_inode(inode); > > - *secid = isp->smk_inode->smk_secid; > + *secid = skp->smk_secid; > } > > /* > @@ -4538,12 +4538,10 @@ static int smack_inode_setsecctx(struct dentry *dentry, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen) > > static int smack_inode_getsecctx(struct inode *inode, void **ctx, u32 *ctxlen) > { > - int len = 0; > - len = smack_inode_getsecurity(inode, XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX, ctx, true); > + struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_inode(inode); > > - if (len < 0) > - return len; > - *ctxlen = len; > + *ctx = skp->smk_known; > + *ctxlen = strlen(skp->smk_known); > return 0; > } > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 6/1/2018 10:45 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx > > > > The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made > > incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security > > context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support > > security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op. > > The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a > > context, which was never freed. The revised implementation > > returns the context correctly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > > Tejun, does this pass your tests? Oh, I'm not the one who reported. Chandan?
>On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> On 6/1/2018 10:45 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> > Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx >> > >> > The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made >> > incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security >> > context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support >> > security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op. >> > The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a >> > context, which was never freed. The revised implementation >> > returns the context correctly. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >> >> Tejun, does this pass your tests? >Oh, I'm not the one who reported. Chandan? Looks good to me. Leak not found. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 6/5/2018 12:04 AM, CHANDAN VN wrote: > > >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> On 6/1/2018 10:45 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> > Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx >>> > >>> > The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made >>> > incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security >>> > context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support >>> > security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op. >>> > The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a >>> > context, which was never freed. The revised implementation >>> > returns the context correctly. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >>> >>> Tejun, does this pass your tests? > >> Oh, I'm not the one who reported. Chandan? > Looks good to me. Leak not found. Thanks. Can I add your "Tested-by:" on the commit? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>On 6/5/2018 12:04 AM, CHANDAN VN wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>>> On 6/1/2018 10:45 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>>> > Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx >>>> > >>>> > The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made >>>> > incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security >>>> > context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support >>>> > security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op. >>>> > The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a >>>> > context, which was never freed. The revised implementation >>>> > returns the context correctly. >>>> > >>>> > Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >>>> >>>> Tejun, does this pass your tests? >> >>> Oh, I'm not the one who reported. Chandan? >> Looks good to me. Leak not found. > >Thanks. Can I add your "Tested-by:" on the commit? Sure. I think "Reported-by:" would also be ok. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c index 0b414836bebd..5e3beae334a8 100644 --- a/security/smack/smack_lsm.c +++ b/security/smack/smack_lsm.c @@ -1545,9 +1545,9 @@ static int smack_inode_listsecurity(struct inode *inode, char *buffer, */ static void smack_inode_getsecid(struct inode *inode, u32 *secid) { - struct inode_smack *isp = inode->i_security; + struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_inode(inode); - *secid = isp->smk_inode->smk_secid; + *secid = skp->smk_secid; } /* @@ -4538,12 +4538,10 @@ static int smack_inode_setsecctx(struct dentry *dentry, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen) static int smack_inode_getsecctx(struct inode *inode, void **ctx, u32 *ctxlen) { - int len = 0; - len = smack_inode_getsecurity(inode, XATTR_SMACK_SUFFIX, ctx, true); + struct smack_known *skp = smk_of_inode(inode); - if (len < 0) - return len; - *ctxlen = len; + *ctx = skp->smk_known; + *ctxlen = strlen(skp->smk_known); return 0; }
Fix memory leak in smack_inode_getsecctx The implementation of smack_inode_getsecctx() made incorrect assumptions about how Smack presents a security context. Smack does not need to allocate memory to support security contexts, so "releasing" a Smack context is a no-op. The code made an unnecessary copy and returned that as a context, which was never freed. The revised implementation returns the context correctly. Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> --- security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html