From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 22:07:51 +0200
Subject: bpf, lsm: Fix the file_mprotect LSM test.
Patch-mainline: v5.7-rc2
Git-commit: 5222d69642a09261222fb9703761a029db16cadf
References: bsc#1177028

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 <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200402200751.26372-1-kpsingh@chromium.org
Acked-by: Gary Lin <glin@suse.com>
---
 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(-)

--- 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;
 
--- 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_ar
 		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;
 	}