From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C344A8E0001 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 02:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id s5-v6so3301898iop.3 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www262.sakura.ne.jp (www262.sakura.ne.jp. [202.181.97.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h25-v6si1899709iog.252.2018.09.12.23.26.34 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 23:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: Add __GFP_NOWARN to allocation at str_read() References: <000000000000038dab0575476b73@google.com> From: Tetsuo Handa Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:26:19 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Paul Moore Cc: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, syzbot+ac488b9811036cea7ea0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, Eric Paris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peter.enderborg@sony.com, Stephen Smalley , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-mm 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.