[bug report] evm: Check also if *tfm is an error pointer in init_desc()
Dan Carpenter
dan.carpenter at oracle.com
Tue May 12 12:34:14 UTC 2020
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:31:53AM +0000, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter at oracle.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:48 PM
> >
> > Hello Roberto Sassu,
> >
> > The patch 53de3b080d5e: "evm: Check also if *tfm is an error pointer
> > in init_desc()" from Apr 27, 2020, leads to the following static
> > checker warning:
> >
> > security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c:119 init_desc()
> > error: '*tfm' dereferencing possible ERR_PTR()
> >
> > security/integrity/evm/evm_crypto.c
> > 89
> > 90 tfm = &evm_tfm[hash_algo];
> > 91 algo = hash_algo_name[hash_algo];
> > 92 }
> > 93
> > 94 if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(*tfm)) {
> >
> > This used to be a "if (!*tfm)" check.
> >
> > 95 mutex_lock(&mutex);
> > 96 if (*tfm)
> > 97 goto out;
> >
> > Then we test again with the lock held. But in the new code if "*tfm"
> > is an error pointer then we jump directly to the unlock and crash on the
> > next line. I can't see how the commit would fix anything.
>
> Hello Dan
>
> you are right. The fix should be applied in both places.
>
> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(*tfm))
> goto out;
No. I was wrong.
>
> > 98 *tfm = crypto_alloc_shash(algo, 0, CRYPTO_NOLOAD);
> > 99 if (IS_ERR(*tfm)) {
> > 100 rc = PTR_ERR(*tfm);
> > 101 pr_err("Can not allocate %s (reason: %ld)\n", algo, rc);
> > 102 *tfm = NULL;
> > 103 mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> > 104 return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > 105 }
> > 106 if (type == EVM_XATTR_HMAC) {
> > 107 rc = crypto_shash_setkey(*tfm, evmkey, evmkey_len);
> > 108 if (rc) {
> > 109 crypto_free_shash(*tfm);
> > 110 *tfm = NULL;
> > 111 mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> > 112 return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > 113 }
> > 114 }
> > 115 out:
> > 116 mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> > 117 }
> > 118
> > 119 desc = kmalloc(sizeof(*desc) + crypto_shash_descsize(*tfm),
> > ^^^^
> > I don't understand how using *tfm outside of a lock is safe at all
> > anyway.
>
> I think the purpose of the mutex is just to prevent two concurrent
> allocations. Later, it should not be a problem, as *tfm is never freed.
>
Actually by the time we take the lock then *tfm is either valid or NULL
so this code works. It's confusing though.
regards,
dan carpenter
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list