linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] userns: sysctl limits for namespaces

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: <94b608ae-1d06-5c41-cbd5-94e663a2163a@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:27:59 +0200
From:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Cc:	mtk.manpages@...il.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] userns: sysctl limits for namespaces

Hello Eric,

On 07/21/2016 06:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> This patchset addresses two use cases:
> - Implement a sane upper bound on the number of namespaces.
> - Provide a way for sandboxes to limit the attack surface from
>   namespaces.
>
> The maximum sane case I can imagine is if every process is a fat
> process, so I set the maximum number of namespaces to the maximum
> number of threads.
>
> I make these limits recursive and per user namespace so that a
> usernamespace root can reduce the limits further.  If a user namespace
> root raises the limit the limit in the parent namespace will be honored.
>
> I have cut this implementation to the bare minimum needed to achieve
> these objectives.
>
> Does anyone know if there is a proper error code to return for resource
> limit exceeded?  I am currently using -EUSERS or -ENFILE but both of
> those feel a little wrong.

ENFILE certainly seems weird. I suppose my first question is: why two
different errors?

Some alternatives you might want to consider: E2BIG, EOVERFLOW,
or (maybe) ERANGE.

Cheers,

Michael