linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] Reimplement 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]

Message-ID: <20210819172618.qwrrw4m7wt33wfmz@example.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:26:18 +0200
From:   Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     "Ma, XinjianX" <xinjianx.ma@...el.com>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkp <lkp@...el.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "christian.brauner@...ntu.com" <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        "containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 5/9] Reimplement RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE on top of ucounts

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:10:26AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:47:14AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> "Ma, XinjianX" <xinjianx.ma@...el.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Hi Alexey,
> >> >
> >> > When lkp team run kernel selftests, we found after these series of patches, testcase mqueue: mq_perf_tests
> >> > in kselftest failed with following message.
> >> 
> >> Which kernel was this run against?
> >> 
> >> Where can the mq_perf_tests that you ran and had problems with be found?
> >> 
> >> During your run were you using user namespaces as part of your test
> >> environment?
> >> 
> >> The error message too many files corresponds to the error code EMFILES
> >> which is the error code that is returned when the rlimit is reached.
> >> 
> >> One possibility is that your test environment was run in a user
> >> namespace and so you wound up limited by rlimit of the user who created
> >> the user namespace at the point of user namespace creation. 
> >> 
> >> At this point if you can give us enough information to look into this
> >> and attempt to reproduce it that would be appreciated.
> >
> > I was able to reproduce it on master without using user namespace.
> > I suspect that the maximum value is not assigned here [1]:
> >
> > set_rlimit_ucount_max(&init_user_ns, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE, task_rlimit(&init_task, RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE));
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/kernel/fork.c#n832
> 
> The rlimits for init_task are set to INIT_RLIMITS.
> In INIT_RLIMITS RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE is set to MQ_MAX_BYTES
> 
> So that definitely means that as the code is current constructed the
> rlimit can not be effectively raised.
> 
> So it looks like we are just silly and preventing the initial rlimits
> from being raised.
> 
> So we probably want to do something like:

Damn, you are faster than me! :)

> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> index bc94b2cc5995..557ce0083ba3 100644
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -825,13 +825,13 @@ void __init fork_init(void)
>  	init_task.signal->rlim[RLIMIT_SIGPENDING] =
>  		init_task.signal->rlim[RLIMIT_NPROC];
>  
> +	/* For non-rlimit ucounts make their default limit max_threads/2 */
>  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_PER_NAMESPACE_UCOUNTS; i++)
>  		init_user_ns.ucount_max[i] = max_threads/2;
>  
> -	set_rlimit_ucount_max(&init_user_ns, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, task_rlimit(&init_task, RLIMIT_NPROC));
> -	set_rlimit_ucount_max(&init_user_ns, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE, task_rlimit(&init_task, RLIMIT_MSGQUEUE));
> -	set_rlimit_ucount_max(&init_user_ns, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, task_rlimit(&init_task, RLIMIT_SIGPENDING));
> -	set_rlimit_ucount_max(&init_user_ns, UCOUNT_RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, task_rlimit(&init_task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK));
> +	/* In init_user_ns default rlimit to be the only limit */
> +	for (; i < UCOUNT_COUNTS; i++)
> +		set_rlimit_ucount_max(&init_user_ns, i, RLIMIT_INFINITY);

s/RLIMIT_INFINITY/RLIM_INFINITY/

>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_VMAP_STACK
>  	cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_BP_PREPARE_DYN, "fork:vm_stack_cache",
> 

Acked-by: Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>

I cannot complete this test on my laptop. On 4Gb, the test ends with
oom-killer. But with this patch, the test definitely passes the moment of
the previous fall.

-- 
Rgrds, legion