linux-kernel - Re: fs: sandboxed process brings host down

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160122215537.GH17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:55:37 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Robert Swiecki <swiecki@...gle.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: fs: sandboxed process brings host down

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:38:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

> My 2GB VM dies at around just 10-th iteration, is it normal?
> Each iteration consumes several hundreds of megs of kernel memory. And
> there seems to be exponential slowdown at around 5-th iteration.
> I understand that there can be lots of forms of a local DoS. But there
> seems to be something pathological about this particular one. And it
> happens only with sandboxing that is meant to reduce DoS
> possibilities...

Sandboxing == giving attacker to do mount without being root.

As for exponential - sure, you double the amount of mounts on each step
(if not quadruple - I don't have your code in front of me right now,
but ISTR two mount --rbind in there).  More obvious form would be
for i in `seq 64`; do mkdir /tmp/$i; mount --rbind / /tmp/$i; done - there
the entire tree would be visible (and visibly exponential by the number of
iterations).

I doubt that the first iteration chews hundreds of megs, BTW.  If you
really get two mount --rbind per iteration, you would have about a million-fold
increase of the number of mounts after ten iterations, and having that chew
2Gb is quite plausible; in that case the first iteration would eat about 10K
or so...