linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 11/18] limits: track and present RLIMIT

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: <20160613222719.GA3397@pc.thejh.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:27:20 +0200
From:	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
To:	Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Janis Danisevskis <jdanis@...gle.com>,
	Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/18] limits: track and present RLIMIT_NPROC actual max

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:44:18PM +0300, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> Track maximum number of processes per user and present it
> in /proc/self/limits.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/base.c        | 4 ++++
>  include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
>  kernel/fork.c         | 5 +++++
>  kernel/sys.c          | 5 +++++
>  4 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> index 1df4fc8..02576c6 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -670,6 +670,10 @@ static int proc_pid_limits(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
>  				seq_printf(m, "%-20lu\n", psecs);
>  			}
>  			break;
> +		case RLIMIT_NPROC:
> +			seq_printf(m, "%-20d\n",
> +				   atomic_read(&task->real_cred->user->max_processes));

Don't you have to take an RCU read lock before dereferencing task->real_cred?
And shouldn't this be done with __task_cred(task) instead of task->real_cred?


> +			break;
>  		default:
>  			seq_printf(m, "%-20lu\n",
>  				   task->signal->rlim_curmax[i]);
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 0150380..feb9bb7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -838,6 +838,7 @@ static inline int signal_group_exit(const struct signal_struct *sig)
>  struct user_struct {
>  	atomic_t __count;	/* reference count */
>  	atomic_t processes;	/* How many processes does this user have? */
> +	atomic_t max_processes;	/* How many processes has this user had at the same time? */
>  	atomic_t sigpending;	/* How many pending signals does this user have? */
>  #ifdef CONFIG_INOTIFY_USER
>  	atomic_t inotify_watches; /* How many inotify watches does this user have? */
> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index 5c2c355..667290f 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -1653,6 +1653,11 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
>  	trace_task_newtask(p, clone_flags);
>  	uprobe_copy_process(p, clone_flags);
>  
> +	if (atomic_read(&p->real_cred->user->max_processes) <
> +	    atomic_read(&p->real_cred->user->processes))
> +		atomic_set(&p->real_cred->user->max_processes,
> +			   atomic_read(&p->real_cred->user->processes));
> +
>  	return p;
>  
>  bad_fork_cancel_cgroup:
> diff --git a/kernel/sys.c b/kernel/sys.c
> index 6629f6f..955cf21 100644
> --- a/kernel/sys.c
> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
> @@ -439,6 +439,11 @@ static int set_user(struct cred *new)
>  	else
>  		current->flags &= ~PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED;
>  
> +	if (atomic_read(&new_user->max_processes) <
> +	    atomic_read(&new_user->processes))
> +		atomic_set(&new_user->max_processes,
> +			   atomic_read(&new_user->processes));
> +

Is this intentionally slightly racy? If so, it might be nice to have a comment
here that documents that.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)