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  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:	Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:13:33 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
	davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
	serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
	indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
	coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF

On 02/27, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> >> +static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> >> +     unsigned long fp_size = fprog->len * sizeof(struct sock_filter);
> >> +     long ret;
> >> +
> >> +     if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
> >> +             return -EINVAL;
> >
> > OK, this limits the memory PR_SET_SECCOMP can use.
> >
> > But,
> >
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * If there is an existing filter, make it the prev and don't drop its
> >> +      * task reference.
> >> +      */
> >> +     filter->prev = current->seccomp.filter;
> >> +     current->seccomp.filter = filter;
> >> +     return 0;
> >
> > this doesn't limit the number of filters, looks like a DoS.
> >
> > What if the application simply does prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, dummy_filter)
> > in an endless loop?
>
> It consumes a massive amount of kernel memory and, maybe, the OOM
> killer gives it a boot :)

may be ;) but most probably oom-killer kills another innocent task,
this memory is not accounted.

> I wasn't sure what the normal convention was for avoiding memory
> consumption by user processes. Should I just add a sysctl

Perhaps we can add a sysctl later, but personally I think that we
can start with some "arbitrary" #define BPF_MAXFILTERS.

> and a
> per-task counter for the max number of filters?

Do we really need the counter? attach_filter is not the fast path,
perhaps seccomp_attach_filter() could simply iterate the chain and
count the number?

In any case, if this hurts perfomance-wise then seccomp_run_filters()
has even more problems.

> I'm fine doing whatever makes sense here.

I am fine either way too.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists