From 5222d69642a09261222fb9703761a029db16cadf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: KP Singh Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 22:07:51 +0200 Subject: bpf, lsm: Fix the file_mprotect LSM test. The test was previously using an mprotect on the heap memory allocated using malloc and was expecting the allocation to be always using sbrk(2). This is, however, not always true and in certain conditions malloc may end up using anonymous mmaps for heap alloctions. This means that the following condition that is used in the "lsm/file_mprotect" program is not sufficent to detect all mprotect calls done on heap memory: is_heap = (vma->vm_start >= vma->vm_mm->start_brk && vma->vm_end <= vma->vm_mm->brk); The test is updated to use an mprotect on memory allocated on the stack. While this would result in the splitting of the vma, this happens only after the security_file_mprotect hook. So, the condition used in the BPF program holds true. Fixes: 03e54f100d57 ("bpf: lsm: Add selftests for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM") Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov Signed-off-by: KP Singh Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200402200751.26372-1-kpsingh@chromium.org --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c | 18 +++++++++--------- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c index 1e4c258de09d..b17eb2045c1d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c @@ -15,7 +15,10 @@ char *CMD_ARGS[] = {"true", NULL}; -int heap_mprotect(void) +#define GET_PAGE_ADDR(ADDR, PAGE_SIZE) \ + (char *)(((unsigned long) (ADDR + PAGE_SIZE)) & ~(PAGE_SIZE-1)) + +int stack_mprotect(void) { void *buf; long sz; @@ -25,12 +28,9 @@ int heap_mprotect(void) if (sz < 0) return sz; - buf = memalign(sz, 2 * sz); - if (buf == NULL) - return -ENOMEM; - - ret = mprotect(buf, sz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC); - free(buf); + buf = alloca(sz * 3); + ret = mprotect(GET_PAGE_ADDR(buf, sz), sz, + PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC); return ret; } @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ void test_test_lsm(void) skel->bss->monitored_pid = getpid(); - err = heap_mprotect(); - if (CHECK(errno != EPERM, "heap_mprotect", "want errno=EPERM, got %d\n", + err = stack_mprotect(); + if (CHECK(errno != EPERM, "stack_mprotect", "want err=EPERM, got %d\n", errno)) goto close_prog; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c index a4e3c223028d..b4598d4bc4f7 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c @@ -23,12 +23,12 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma, return ret; __u32 pid = bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32; - int is_heap = 0; + int is_stack = 0; - is_heap = (vma->vm_start >= vma->vm_mm->start_brk && - vma->vm_end <= vma->vm_mm->brk); + is_stack = (vma->vm_start <= vma->vm_mm->start_stack && + vma->vm_end >= vma->vm_mm->start_stack); - if (is_heap && monitored_pid == pid) { + if (is_stack && monitored_pid == pid) { mprotect_count++; ret = -EPERM; } -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151