[bug report] AppArmor: policy routines for loading and unpacking policy
Dan Carpenter
dan.carpenter at oracle.com
Wed Jul 4 10:35:00 UTC 2018
Hello John Johansen,
The patch 736ec752d95e: "AppArmor: policy routines for loading and
unpacking policy" from Jul 29, 2010, leads to the following static
checker warning:
security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c:410 verify_accept()
warn: bitwise AND condition is false here
security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c:413 verify_accept()
warn: bitwise AND condition is false here
security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
392 #define DFA_VALID_PERM_MASK 0xffffffff
393 #define DFA_VALID_PERM2_MASK 0xffffffff
394
395 /**
396 * verify_accept - verify the accept tables of a dfa
397 * @dfa: dfa to verify accept tables of (NOT NULL)
398 * @flags: flags governing dfa
399 *
400 * Returns: 1 if valid accept tables else 0 if error
401 */
402 static bool verify_accept(struct aa_dfa *dfa, int flags)
403 {
404 int i;
405
406 /* verify accept permissions */
407 for (i = 0; i < dfa->tables[YYTD_ID_ACCEPT]->td_lolen; i++) {
408 int mode = ACCEPT_TABLE(dfa)[i];
409
410 if (mode & ~DFA_VALID_PERM_MASK)
411 return 0;
412
413 if (ACCEPT_TABLE2(dfa)[i] & ~DFA_VALID_PERM2_MASK)
414 return 0;
Normally, I don't report this kind of static checker warning because it
looks like maybe we had intended to make DFA_VALID_PERM_MASK
configurable or something.
But these kinds of things make me nervous when they're part of a
permission check. It's been 8 years and this function has always just
been a no-op which says that the the permissions are OK. Can we just
remove the function?
415 }
416 return 1;
417 }
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list