linux-kernel - Re: [patch] drop epoll max_user_instances and rely only on max_user

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: <20090129005716.6dd51929.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:57:16 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [patch] drop epoll max_user_instances and rely only on
 max_user_watches


> Subject: [patch] drop epoll max_user_instances and rely only on max_user_watches

nanonit: please prepare titles in the form "subsystem-id:
what-i-did-to-it", so a suitable name here would be

	epoll: drop max_user_instances and rely only on max_user_watches

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:56:07 -0800 (PST) Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> wrote:

> Linus suggested to put limits where the money is, and max_user_watches 
> already does that w/out the need of max_user_instances. That has the 
> advantage to mitigate the potential DoS while allowing pretty generous 
> default behavior.

A reader of this changelog would be wondering what this DoS is.

> Allowing top 4% of low memory (per user) to be allocated in epoll 
> watches, we have:
> 
> LOMEM    MAX_WATCHES (per user)
> 512MB    ~178000
> 1GB      ~356000
> 2GB      ~712000
> 
> A box with 512MB of lomem, will meet some challenge in hitting 180K 
> watches, socket buffers math teaches us.
> No more max_user_instances limits then.

So the max consumable memory is

	number-of-users * max_user_watches * sizeof(whatever)

?

So if enough users gang up (or if one person has access to a lot of
UIDs), there's still a DoS?

I suspect we can live with that.



I assume that because you based all this on all the other patches, you
view it as 2.6.30 material?

> @@ -581,10 +570,6 @@

please use `diff -p'.  It helps.

>  	struct eventpoll *ep;
>  
>  	user = get_current_user();
> -	error = -EMFILE;
> -	if (unlikely(atomic_read(&user->epoll_devs) >=
> -			max_user_instances))
> -		goto free_uid;
>  	error = -ENOMEM;
>  	ep = kzalloc(sizeof(*ep), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (unlikely(!ep))
> @@ -1141,7 +1126,6 @@
>  			      flags & O_CLOEXEC);
>  	if (fd < 0)
>  		ep_free(ep);
> -	atomic_inc(&ep->user->epoll_devs);
>  
>  error_return:
>  	DNPRINTK(3, (KERN_INFO "[%p] eventpoll: sys_epoll_create(%d) = %d\n",

I hit a reject here (which is actually in epoll_create1()) (and diff -p
might not have told us of this, because of that darned
SYSCALL_DEFINE1() thing we just added) (which broke ctags too).

The code I have is

	if (error < 0)
		ep_free(ep);
	else
		atomic_inc(&ep->user->epoll_devs);

so I obviously nuked the `else' as well.



--
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/