[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202501151630.87A0A8E7C4@keescook>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:32:18 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: nicolas.bouchinet@...p-os.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Bouchinet <nicolas.bouchinet@....gouv.fr>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, Lin Feng <linf@...gsu.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] coredump: Fixes core_pipe_limit sysctl
proc_handler
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 02:22:08PM +0100, nicolas.bouchinet@...p-os.org wrote:
> Any negative write or >= to INT_MAX in core_pipe_limit sysctl would
> hypothetically allow a user to create very high load on the system by
> running processes that produces a coredump in case the core_pattern
> sysctl is configured to pipe core files to user space helper.
> Memory or PID exhaustion should happen before but it anyway breaks the
> core_pipe_limit semantic.
Isn't this true for "0" too (the default)? I'm not opposed to the change
since it makes things more clear, but I don't think the >=INT_MAX
problem is anything more than "functionally identical to 0". :)
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists