linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exec: Avoid RLIMIT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:09:08 -0600
From:   "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()

Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@...omium.org):
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Kees Cook (keescook@...omium.org):
> >> While the defense-in-depth RLIMIT_STACK limit on setuid processes was
> >> protected against races from other threads calling setrlimit(), I missed
> >> protecting it against races from external processes calling prlimit().
> >> This adds locking around the change and makes sure that rlim_max is set
> >> too.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
> >> Reported-by: Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
> >> Fixes: 64701dee4178e ("exec: Use sane stack rlimit under secureexec")
> >> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> >> Cc: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
> >> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >
> > The only thing i'm wondering is in do_prlimit():
> >
> > . 1480         if (new_rlim) {
> > . 1481                 if (new_rlim->rlim_cur > new_rlim->rlim_max)
> > . 1482                         return -EINVAL;
> >
> > that bit is done not under the lock.  Does that still allow a
> > race, if this check is done before the below block, and then the
> > rest proceeds after?
> >
> > I *think* not, because later in do_prlimit() it will return -EPERM if
> >
> > . 1500                 if (new_rlim->rlim_max > rlim->rlim_max &&
> > . 1501                                 !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
> >
> > Although rlim is gathered before the lock, but that is a struct *
> > so should be ok?
> 
> I stared at this for a while too. I think it's okay because the max is
> checked under the lock, so the max can't be raced to be raised. The
> cur value could get raced, though, but I don't think that's a problem,
> since it's the "soft" limit.

Oh, right, and so if soft > hard that will just end up ignored...  ok.