[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1358960188.12374.830.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:56:28 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Yannick Koehler <yannick@...hler.name>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unix Socket buffer attribution
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 11:36 -0500, Yannick Koehler wrote:
> > So what prevents a malicious program to DOS the machine ?
>
> The recv queue (checked with recvq_full()) and receiving's socket
> rcvbuf (check added in my patch).
>
Nope. The limit is given in number of messages, and its the socket
backlog. Many machines setup a somaxconn = 1024 limit in order
to reasonably listen for TCP connections.
> Actually the current situation can easily lead to a DOS situation. I
> simply have to write one application that connect to a unix socket
> domain and have it send me data for which I never call recvfrom() and
> voilĂ , all other consumer of this unix socket application will no more
> be able to communicate with this application once it maxed out it's
> sndbuf, default is 128k I believe.
A single message can consume ~128k.
If we allow 1024 messages being sent, we consume 128 Mbytes per evil
socket.
Enough to kill many linux based devices.
You'll have to add proper limits (SO_RCVBUF), accounting the truesize of
all accumulated messages.
--
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