linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] fs/select: add vmalloc fallback for select(2)

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, 23 Sep 2016 09:42:07 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Vlastimil Babka' <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] fs/select: add vmalloc fallback for select(2)

From: Vlastimil Babka
> Sent: 22 September 2016 18:55
...
> So in the case of select() it seems like the memory we need 6 bits per file
> descriptor, multiplied by the highest possible file descriptor (nfds) as passed
> to the syscall. According to the man page of select:
> 
>         EINVAL nfds is negative or exceeds the RLIMIT_NOFILE resource limit (see
> getrlimit(2)).

That second clause is relatively recent.

> The code actually seems to silently cap the value instead of returning EINVAL
> though? (IIUC):
> 
>         /* max_fds can increase, so grab it once to avoid race */
>          rcu_read_lock();
>          fdt = files_fdtable(current->files);
>          max_fds = fdt->max_fds;
>          rcu_read_unlock();
>          if (n > max_fds)
>                  n = max_fds;
> 
> The default for this cap seems to be 1024 where I checked (again, IIUC, it's
> what ulimit -n returns?). I wasn't able to change it to more than 2048, which
> makes the bitmaps still below PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> So if I get that right, the system admin would have to allow really large
> RLIMIT_NOFILE to even make vmalloc() possible here. So I don't see it as a large
> concern?

4k open files isn't that many.
Especially for programs that are using pipes to emulate windows events.

I suspect that fdt->max_fds is an upper bound for the highest fd the
process has open - not the RLIMIT_NOFILE value.
select() shouldn't be silently ignoring large values of 'n' unless
the fd_set bits are zero.

Of course, select does scale well for high numbered fds
and neither poll nor select scale well for large numbers of fds.

	David