Looks like issue in handling active_nodes count in 4.19 kernel .
Stephen Smalley
sds at tycho.nsa.gov
Mon Dec 9 18:05:29 UTC 2019
On 12/9/19 10:55 AM, rsiddoji at codeaurora.org wrote:
> Hi team ,
> Looks like we have issue in handling the "active_nodes" count in the
> Selinux - avc.c file.
> Where avc_cache.active_nodes increase more than slot array and code
> frequency calling of avc_reclaim_node() from avc_alloc_node() ;
>
> Where following are the 2 instance which seem to possible culprits which
> are seen on 4.19 kernel . Can you comment if my understand is wrong.
>
>
> #1. if we see the active_nodes count is incremented in avc_alloc_node
> (avc) which is called in avc_insert()
> Where if the code take failure path on avc_xperms_populate the code will
> not decrement this counter .
>
>
> static struct avc_node *avc_insert(struct selinux_avc *avc,
> u32 ssid, u32 tsid, u16 tclass,
> struct av_decision *avd,
> ....
> node = avc_alloc_node(avc); //incremented here
> ....
> rc = avc_xperms_populate(node, xp_node); // possibilities of
> this getting failure is there .
> if (rc) {
> kmem_cache_free(avc_node_cachep, node); // but on
> failure we are not decrementing active_nodes ?
> return NULL;
> }
I think you are correct; we should perhaps be calling avc_node_kill()
here as we do in an earlier error path?
>
> #2. where it looks like the logic on comparing the active_nodes against
> avc_cache_threshold seems wired as the count of active nodes is always
> going to be
> more than 512 will may land in simply removing /calling avc_reclaim_node
> frequently much before the slots are full maybe we are not using cache at
> best ?
> we should be comparing with some high watermark ? or my understanding wrong
> ?
>
> /*@ static struct avc_node *avc_alloc_node(struct selinux_avc *avc) */
>
> if (atomic_inc_return(&avc->avc_cache.active_nodes) >
> avc->avc_cache_threshold) // default threshold is 512
> avc_reclaim_node(avc);
>
Not entirely sure what you are asking here. avc_reclaim_node() should
reclaim multiple nodes up to AVC_CACHE_RECLAIM. Possibly that should be
configurable via selinuxfs too, and/or calculated from
avc_cache_threshold in some way?
Were you interested in creating a patch to fix the first issue above or
looking to us to do so?
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list