Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:28:41 +0100 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: CVE-2016-7097 causes acl leak |
| |
On Mon 12-12-16 22:26:09, Cong Wang wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com> 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 <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR
| |