linux-kernel - Re: Fork Bombing Patch

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

Message-ID: <25ae38200708212317h7776768v33a82f646ac6b749@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:47:18 +0530
From:	"Anand Jahagirdar" <anandjigar@...il.com>
To:	"Chris Snook" <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fork Bombing Patch

Hi
   I am forwarding one more improved patch which i have modified as
per your suggestions. Insted of KERN_INFO i have used KERN_NOTICE and
i have added one more if block to check hard limit. how good it is?

anand

On 8/20/07, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
> Anand Jahagirdar wrote:
> > Hi
> >    As Per the Previous Discussion of my Patch,I think insted of using
> > KERN_CRIT,it is better to lower the priority level to KERN_WARNING.
> > thats why i used KERN_WARNING.it will warn administrator and its
> > administrator responsibility to take whatever action he want to take.
> >
> > anand
>
> Philosophically, I'm okay with the idea of a forkbomb meriting KERN_WARN
> priority, but we should never have a printk that can be trivially triggered by
> an unprivileged user that gets anything higher than KERN_INFO.  If I'm an
> attacker, and I want to do bad things without getting logged, the first thing I
> do is launch a carefully-tuned forkbomb that doesn't bog down the system, just
> triggers this message as often as the ratelimit will allow.  Once /var/log is
> full, I can do my nastiness.  Administrators need to be able to protect against
> that kind of thing without losing the ability to log KERN_WARN and higher
> priority messages.
>
> Also, I stand by my assertion that we should only be complaining if the hard
> limit is also exceeded, since it's totally valid for an application to
> self-constrain using soft limits.  It may be uncommon, but the people who happen
> to use whatever applications do this will be very unhappy when they update their
> kernel and /var fills up from this spew.
>
>        -- Chris
>

Download attachment "fork.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (1197 bytes)