From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
socketpair@gmail.com,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size()
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 11:17:46 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea75f57d-9bb8-33b5-3b63-8f99f4981561@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a451bb84-4a38-b00c-5bbb-dbaf914b8788@gmail.com>
On 08/20/2016 08:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Vegard,
>
> On 08/19/2016 08:30 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> On 08/19/2016 07:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> The limit checking in pipe_set_size() (used by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
>>> has the following problems:
>> [...]
>>> @@ -1030,6 +1030,7 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
>>> {
>>> struct pipe_buffer *bufs;
>>> unsigned int size, nr_pages;
>>> + long ret = 0;
>>>
>>> size = round_pipe_size(arg);
>>> nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> @@ -1037,13 +1038,26 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
>>> if (!nr_pages)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && size > pipe_max_size)
>>> - return -EPERM;
>>> + account_pipe_buffers(pipe->user, pipe->buffers, nr_pages);
>>>
>>> - if ((too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(pipe->user) ||
>>> - too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(pipe->user)) &&
>>> - !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>>> - return -EPERM;
>>> + /*
>>> + * If trying to increase the pipe capacity, check that an
>>> + * unprivileged user is not trying to exceed various limits.
>>> + * (Decreasing the pipe capacity is always permitted, even
>>> + * if the user is currently over a limit.)
>>> + */
>>> + if (nr_pages > pipe->buffers) {
>>> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && size > pipe_max_size) {
>>> + ret = -EPERM;
>>> + goto out_revert_acct;
>>> + } else if ((too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(pipe->user) ||
>>> + too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(pipe->user)) &&
>>> + !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) &&
>>> + !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
>>> + ret = -EPERM;
>>> + goto out_revert_acct;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>
>> I'm slightly worried about not checking arg/nr_pages before we pass it
>> on to account_pipe_buffers().
>>
>> The potential problem happens if the user passes a very large number
>> which will overflow pipe->user->pipe_bufs.
>>
>> On 32-bit, sizeof(int) == sizeof(long), so if they pass arg = INT_MAX
>> then round_pipe_size() returns INT_MAX. Although it's true that the
>> accounting is done in terms of pages and not bytes, so you'd need on the
>> order of (1 << 13) = 8192 processes hitting the limit at the same time
>> in order to make it overflow, which seems a bit unlikely.
>>
>> (See https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/12/215 for another discussion on the
>> limit checking)
>>
>> Is there any reason why we couldn't do the (size > pipe_max_size) check
>> before calling account_pipe_buffers()?
>
> No reason that I can see. Just a little more work to be done in the
> code, I think.
And, just so I make sure we're understanding each other... I assume you
mean changing the code here to something like:
static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
{
struct pipe_buffer *bufs;
unsigned int size, nr_pages;
unsigned long user_bufs;
long ret = 0;
size = round_pipe_size(arg);
nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
if (!nr_pages)
return -EINVAL;
/*
* If trying to increase the pipe capacity, check that an
* unprivileged user is not trying to exceed various limits
* (soft limit check here, hard limit check just below).
* Decreasing the pipe capacity is always permitted, even
* if the user is currently over a limit.
*/
if (nr_pages > pipe->buffers &&
size > pipe_max_size && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE))
return -EPERM;
user_bufs = account_pipe_buffers(pipe->user, pipe->buffers, nr_pages);
if (nr_pages > pipe->buffers &&
too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(user_bufs ||
too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(user_bufs)) &&
!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
ret = -EPERM;
goto out_revert_acct;
}
Right?
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-19 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <67ce15aa-cf43-0c89-d079-2d966177c56d@gmail.com>
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 1/8] pipe: relocate round_pipe_size() above pipe_set_size() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 2/8] pipe: move limit checking logic into pipe_set_size() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 3/8] pipe: refactor argument for account_pipe_buffers() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:48 ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-19 20:51 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-21 21:15 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-21 21:35 ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-22 19:37 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 8:30 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-19 20:56 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 23:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message]
2016-08-21 10:33 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-21 21:14 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 5/8] pipe: simplify logic in alloc_pipe_info() Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 6/8] pipe: fix limit checking " Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:25 ` [PATCH 7/8] pipe: make account_pipe_buffers() return a value, and use it Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 9:36 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-08-19 20:51 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2016-08-19 5:26 ` [PATCH 8/8] pipe: cap initial pipe capacity according to pipe-max-size limit Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ea75f57d-9bb8-33b5-3b63-8f99f4981561@gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=socketpair@gmail.com \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).