linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 15/18] limits: track 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]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:52:33 -0400
From:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To:	Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
	Marcus Gelderie <redmnic@...il.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 15/18] limits: track RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE actual max

On 6/13/2016 3:44 PM, Topi Miettinen wrote:
> Track maximum size of message queues, presented in /proc/self/limits.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
> ---
>  ipc/mqueue.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
> index ade739f..edccf55 100644
> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
> @@ -287,6 +287,8 @@ static struct inode *mqueue_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
>  
>  		/* all is ok */
>  		info->user = get_uid(u);
> +		/* XXX resource limits apply per task, not per user */
> +		bump_rlimit(RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE, u->mq_bytes);
>  	} else if (S_ISDIR(mode)) {
>  		inc_nlink(inode);
>  		/* Some things misbehave if size == 0 on a directory */
> 

This patch looks all sorts of wrong to me.

In a current linus tree I can't find a single instance of bump_rlimit.
Where is this magical function coming from?

Second, u->mq_bytes is the current size of all message queues for a
given user.  It is not per-task.  So your message about limits being
per-task is wrong (at least partially, the actual byte count is per-user
not per-task, but the limit we check when we create a new queue is
per-task and not per-user).  So your comment is wrong, the one
functional line you added appears to be a non-existent function, and
even if those two things are resolved, why in the world would the fact
that we created a new message queue mean we should bump our rlimit?
That makes no sense, because would *never* have a working rlimit any
more, we would simply increase our rlimit by the size of our existing
queues every time we made a queue.

This is just a totally broken patch.  Major NAK.

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
    GPG Key ID: 0E572FDD

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (885 bytes)