linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ucounts: Count rlimits in each user namespace

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: <87a6n8simq.fsf@disp2133>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:09:01 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ucounts: Count rlimits in each user namespace

ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
>>>
>>> > Why the "sigpending < LONG_MAX" test in that
>>> >
>>> >         if (override_rlimit || (sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <=
>>> > task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING))) {
>>> > thing?
>>>
>>> On second look that sigpending < LONG_MAX check is necessary.  When
>>> inc_rlimit_ucounts detects a problem it returns LONG_MAX.
>>
>> I saw that, but _without_ that test you'd be left with just that
>>
>>     sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
>>
>> and if task_rlimit() is LONG_MAX, then that means "no limits", so it is all ok.
>
> It means no limits locally.  The creator of your user namespace might
> have had a limit which you are also bound by.
>
> The other possibility is that inc_rlimits_ucounts caused a sigpending
> counter to overflow.  In which case we need to fail and run
> dec_rlimit_ucounts to keep the counter from staying overflowed.
>
> So I don't see a clever way to avoid the sigpending < LONG_MAX  test.

Hmm.  I take that back.  There is a simple clever way to satisfy all of
the tests.

- sigpending < LONG_MAX && sigpending <= task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)
+ sigpending < task_rlimit(t, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING)

That would just need a small comment to explain the subtleties.  

Eric