Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200610181021.19209-1-trix@redhat.com> <20200610181021.19209-2-trix@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200610181021.19209-2-trix@redhat.com>
From:   Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:10:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEjxPJ4uRG4FiBbyUxQdsLWsz4torr+rst1VKN_Gdk5PqT6Kpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] selinux: fix double free
To:     trix@redhat.com
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>, rgb@redhat.com,
        SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:10 PM <trix@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
>
> Clang's static analysis tool reports these double free memory errors.
>
> security/selinux/ss/services.c:2987:4: warning: Attempt to free released memory [unix.Malloc]
>                         kfree(bnames[i]);
>                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> security/selinux/ss/services.c:2990:2: warning: Attempt to free released memory [unix.Malloc]
>         kfree(bvalues);
>         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> So improve the security_get_bools error handling by freeing these variables
> and setting their return pointers to NULL and the return len to 0
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
> ---
>  security/selinux/ss/services.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/ss/services.c b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> index 313919bd42f8..2dffae1feaff 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/ss/services.c
> @@ -2888,8 +2888,12 @@ int security_get_bools(struct selinux_state *state,
>         if (*names) {
>                 for (i = 0; i < *len; i++)
>                         kfree((*names)[i]);
> +               kfree(names);

kfree(*names)?

>         }
>         kfree(*values);
> +       *len = 0;
> +       *names = NULL;
> +       *values = NULL;
>         goto out;
>  }

Wondering if the caller handling ought to be changed too even though
this should avoid the problem.