Messages in this thread | | | From | Aleksandr Nogikh <> | Subject | [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] security: add fault injection to LSM hooks | Date | Mon, 26 Oct 2020 12:52:25 +0000 |
| |
From: Aleksandr Nogikh <nogikh@google.com>
Fault injection capabilities[Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.rst] facilitate testing of the stability of the Linux kernel by providing means to force a number of kernel interfaces to return error codes. This RFC proposes adding such fault injection capability into LSM hooks.
The intent is to make it possible to test whether the existing kernel code properly handles negative return values of LSM hooks. Syzbot [https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md] will automatically do that with the aid of instrumentation tools once these changes are merged.
Is the attached implementation consistent with the ideas behind LSM stacking in its current state? In particular, is it reasonable to expect the existing LSMs to operate normally when they are active and such fault injection happens?
Local fuzzing of a Linux kernel with this patch has almost instantly led to two crashes. I'm not sure whether they correspond to actual issues as the LSM fault injection implementation (and the concept itself) can be wrong. Here they are:
1. "general protection fault in selinux_inode_free_security". This is caused by executing security_inode_free() when a fault was injected to inode_alloc_security() and therefore selinux_inode_alloc_security() was not executed. In this case, the subsequent inode_free_security() call executes list_del_init() on an uninitialized list. Theoretically, this may happen if some other LSM precedes selinux in the hooks list and its inode_alloc_security hook fails.
A fault was injected to this call_int_hook(): https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9/source/security/security.c#L975
Below you can find a call trace for the subsequent crash. __list_del_entry include/linux/list.h:132 [inline] list_del_init include/linux/list.h:204 [inline] inode_free_security security/selinux/hooks.c:337 [inline] selinux_inode_free_security+0xf0/0x290 security/selinux/hooks.c:2839 security_inode_free+0x46/0xc0 security/security.c:1042 security_inode_alloc+0x161/0x1a0 security/security.c:1027 inode_init_always+0x5a7/0xd10 fs/inode.c:171 alloc_inode+0x82/0x230 fs/inode.c:239 new_inode_pseudo+0x14/0xe0 fs/inode.c:928 sock_alloc+0x3c/0x260 net/socket.c:573 __sock_create+0xb9/0x780 net/socket.c:1391 sock_create net/socket.c:1478 [inline] __sys_socket+0xef/0x200 net/socket.c:1520 __do_sys_socket net/socket.c:1529 [inline] __se_sys_socket net/socket.c:1527 [inline] __x64_sys_socket+0x6f/0xb0 net/socket.c:1527 do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
2. BUG_ON inside security_skb_classify_flow(). Why is it needed there? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9/source/security/security.c#L2426
--- v2: * Renamed should_fail_lsm_hook() to should_fail_lsm_hook(). * Extended the documentation.
Aleksandr Nogikh (2): security: add fault injection capability docs: add fail_lsm_hooks info to fault-injection.rst
.../fault-injection/fault-injection.rst | 6 +++ lib/Kconfig.debug | 6 +++ security/security.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
base-commit: 2ef991b5fdbe828dc8fb8af473dab160729570ed -- 2.29.0.rc1.297.gfa9743e501-goog
| |