[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090626165908.GB12063@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:59:08 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, earl_chew@...lent.com,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when
using pipes in core_pattern: recursive dump detection
On 06/26, Neil Horman wrote:
>
> + if (core_limit == 0) {
> + /*
> + * Normally core limits are irrelevant to pipes, since
> + * we're not writing to the file system, but we use
> + * core_limit of 0 here as a speacial value. Any
> + * non-zero limit gets set to RLIM_INFINITY below, but
> + * a limit of 0 skips the dump. This is a consistent
> + * way to catch recursive crashes. We can still crash
> + * if the core_pattern binary sets RLIM_CORE = !0
> + * but it runs as root, and can do lots of stupid things
> + * Note that we use task_tgid_vnr here to grab the pid of the
> + * process group leader. That way we get the right pid if a thread
> + * in a multi-threaded core_pattern process dies.
> + */
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "Process %d(%s) has RLIMIT_CORE set to 0\n",
> + task_tgid_vnr(current), current->comm);
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "Aborting core\n");
Andrew has already pointed out this, unprivileged-user-triggerable
printk.
Doesn't look good, if core_pattern starts with "|" any user can set
RLIMIT_CORE = 0 and then just do
for (;;)
if (pid = fork())
kill(pid, SIGQUIT);
to DOS printk/syslog, no?
Oleg.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists