linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets

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: <56839CC2.9080000@stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:58:42 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, socketpair@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets

On 29.12.2015 21:35, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 03:48:45PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> On 28.12.2015 15:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> It is possible for a process to allocate and accumulate far more FDs than
>>> the process' limit by sending them over a unix socket then closing them
>>> to keep the process' fd count low.
>>>
>>> This change addresses this problem by keeping track of the number of FDs
>>> in flight per user and preventing non-privileged processes from having
>>> more FDs in flight than their configured FD limit.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: socketpair@...il.com
>>> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
>>
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>> I think this does not close the DoS attack completely as we duplicate
>> fds if the reader uses MSG_PEEK on the unix domain socket and thus
>> clones the fd. Have I overlooked something?
>
> I didn't know this behaviour. However, then the fd remains in flight, right ?
> So as long as it's not removed from the queue, the sender cannot add more
> than its FD limit. I may be missing something obvious though :-/

Yes, it remains in flight.

The MSG_PEEK code should not be harmful and the patch is good as is. I 
first understood from the published private thread, that it is possible 
for a program to exceed the rlimit of fds. But the DoS is only by 
keeping the fds in flight and not attaching them to any program.

__alloc_fd, called on the receiver side, does check for the rlimit 
maximum anyway, so I don't see a loophole anymore:

Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>

Another idea would be to add the amount of memory used to manage the fds 
to sock_rmem/wmem but I don't see any advantages or disadvantages.

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/