linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] VFS: fix recent breakage of FS_REVAL

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:	Tue, 25 May 2010 00:44:04 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"Dr. J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: fix recent breakage of FS_REVAL_DOT

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:01:09AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Client question: what stops you from stack overflows in that area?  Call
> chains you've got are *deep*, and I really wonder what happens if you
> hit a referral point while traversing nested symlink, get pathname
> resolution (already several levels into recursion) call ->follow_link(),
> bounce down through nfs_do_refmount/nfs_follow_referral/try_location/
> vfs_kern_mount/nfs4_referral_get_sb/nfs_follow_remote_path into
> vfs_path_lookup, which will cheerfully add a few more loops like that.
> 
> Sure, the *total* nesting depth through symlinks is still limited by 8, but
> that pile of stack frames is _MUCH_ fatter than what we normally have in
> pathname resolution.  You've suddenly added ~60 extra stack frames to the
> worst-case stack footprint of the pathname resolution.  Don't try that
> on sparc64, boys and girls, it won't be happy with attempt to carve ~12Kb
> extra out of its kernel stack...  In fact, it's worse than just ~60 stack
> frames - several will contain (on-stack) struct nameidata in them, which
> very definitely will _not_ fit into the minimal stack frame.  It's about
> 160 bytes extra, for each of those (up to 7).

Actually, just what will happen if you have a referral that would eventually
resolve to a directory you have no permissions to access?  AFAICS, you'll
end up trying it on all alternates, since nfs_follow_referral() will cheerfully
keep trying one variant after another, getting -EACCES from each.  Worse,
if there are nested referrals in it, you'll get all sequences of alternates
tried before you give up.

..o*O(at least it's merely exponential; Ackermann would be even more fun)
--
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/