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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 17:40:09 +0100 From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, mcgrof@...nel.org, joe.lawrence@...hat.com, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] sysctl: handle overflow for file-max On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:44 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:33:20AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > >> Hey, > >> > >> Here is v3 of this patchset. Changelogs are in the individual commits. > >> > >> Currently, when writing > >> > >> echo 18446744073709551616 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max > >> > >> /proc/sys/fs/file-max will overflow and be set to 0. That quickly > >> crashes the system. > >> > >> The first version of this patch intended to detect the overflow and cap > >> at ULONG_MAX. However, we should not do this and rather return EINVAL on > >> overflow. The reasons are: > >> - this aligns with other sysctl handlers that simply reject overflows > >> (cf. [1], [2], and a bunch of others) > >> - we already do a partial fail on overflow right now > >> Namely, when the TMPBUFLEN is exceeded. So we already reject values > >> such as 184467440737095516160 (21 chars) but accept values such as > >> 18446744073709551616 (20 chars) but both are overflows. So we should > >> just always reject 64bit overflows and not special-case this based on > >> the number of chars. > >> > >> (This patchset is in reference to https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/11/585.) > > > > Just so that we don't forget, can we make sure that this gets picked > > into linux-next? :) > > I was hoping akpm would take this? Andrew, does the v3 look okay to you? gentle ping again :) Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists