linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.27-rc5] Allow set RLIMIT_NOFILE to RLIM

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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:31:41 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Adam Tkac <vonsch@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.27-rc5] Allow set RLIMIT_NOFILE to RLIM_INFINITY

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:14:07 +0200
Adam Tkac <vonsch@...il.com> wrote:

> when process wants set limit of open files to RLIM_INFINITY it gets
> EPERM even if it has CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capability. Attached patch
> should fix the problem. Please add me to CC of your responses because
> I'm not member of list.
> 
> Regards, Adam
> 
> -- 
> Adam Tkac
> 
> 
> [linux26-openfiles.patch  text/plain (634B)]
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -1458,8 +1458,14 @@ asmlinkage long sys_setrlimit(unsigned i
>  	if ((new_rlim.rlim_max > old_rlim->rlim_max) &&
>  	    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
>  		return -EPERM;
> -	if (resource == RLIMIT_NOFILE && new_rlim.rlim_max > sysctl_nr_open)
> -		return -EPERM;
> +	if (resource == RLIMIT_NOFILE) {
> +		if (new_rlim.rlim_max == RLIM_INFINITY)
> +			new_rlim.rlim_max = sysctl_nr_open;
> +		if (new_rlim.rlim_cur == RLIM_INFINITY)
> +			new_rlim.rlim_cur = sysctl_nr_open;
> +		if (new_rlim.rlim_max > sysctl_nr_open)
> +			return -EPERM;
> +	}

The kernel has had this behaviour for a long time.  2.6.13 had:

	if ((new_rlim.rlim_max > old_rlim->rlim_max) &&
	    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
		return -EPERM;
	if (resource == RLIMIT_NOFILE && new_rlim.rlim_max > NR_OPEN)
			return -EPERM;

I don't immediately see a problem with your change, but what makes you
believe that it is needed?  Is there some standard which we're
violating?  Is there some operational situation in which the current
behaviour is causing a problem?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/