From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: keescook@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ebiederm@xmission.com, mcgrof@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, joe.lawrence@redhat.com,
linux@dominikbrodowski.net, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] sysctl: handle overflow for file-max
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:21:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181016152100.zg2pmyk6puc5qsr5@brauner.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22319ca1-6dab-fe36-40d5-9c88f7a175ee@redhat.com>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/15/2018 06:55 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Currently, when writing
> >
> > echo 18446744073709551616 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
> >
> > /proc/sys/fs/file-max will overflow and be set to 0. That quickly
> > crashes the system.
> > This commit explicitly caps the value for file-max to ULONG_MAX.
> >
> > Note, this isn't technically necessary since proc_get_long() will already
> > return ULONG_MAX. However, two reason why we still should do this:
> > 1. it makes it explicit what the upper bound of file-max is instead of
> > making readers of the code infer it from proc_get_long() themselves
> > 2. other tunebles than file-max may want to set a lower max value than
> > ULONG_MAX and we need to enable __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() to handle
> > such cases too
> >
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
> > ---
> > v0->v1:
> > - if max value is < than ULONG_MAX use max as upper bound
> > - (Dominik) remove double "the" from commit message
> > ---
> > kernel/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > index 97551eb42946..226d4eaf4b0e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused one = 1;
> > static int __maybe_unused two = 2;
> > static int __maybe_unused four = 4;
> > static unsigned long one_ul = 1;
> > +static unsigned long ulong_max = ULONG_MAX;
> > static int one_hundred = 100;
> > static int one_thousand = 1000;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
> > @@ -1696,6 +1697,7 @@ static struct ctl_table fs_table[] = {
> > .maxlen = sizeof(files_stat.max_files),
> > .mode = 0644,
> > .proc_handler = proc_doulongvec_minmax,
> > + .extra2 = &ulong_max,
>
> What is the point of having a maximum value of ULONG_MAX anyway? No
> value you can put into a ulong type can be bigger than that.
This is changed in the new code to LONG_MAX. See the full thread for
context. There's also an additional explantion in the commit message.
>
> > },
> > {
> > .procname = "nr_open",
> > @@ -2795,6 +2797,8 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int
> > break;
> > if (neg)
> > continue;
> > + if (max && val > *max)
> > + val = *max;
> > val = convmul * val / convdiv;
> > if ((min && val < *min) || (max && val > *max))
> > continue;
>
> This does introduce a change in behavior. Previously the out-of-bound
> value is ignored, now it is capped at its maximum. This is a
> user-visible change.
Not completely true though. Try
echo 18446744073709551616 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
on a system you find acceptable loosing.
So this is an acceptable user-visible change I'd say. But I'm open to
other suggestions.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-16 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-15 10:55 [PATCH v1 0/2] sysctl: cap file-max value at ULONG_MAX Christian Brauner
2018-10-15 10:55 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] sysctl: cap to ULONG_MAX in proc_get_long() Christian Brauner
2018-10-15 16:18 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-15 16:30 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-15 19:01 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-15 10:55 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] sysctl: handle overflow for file-max Christian Brauner
2018-10-15 16:11 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-15 16:28 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-15 21:20 ` Kees Cook
2018-10-16 13:16 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-16 14:38 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-16 15:13 ` Waiman Long
2018-10-16 15:21 ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2018-10-16 15:25 ` Waiman Long
2018-10-16 15:29 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-16 15:33 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-16 15:34 ` Waiman Long
2018-10-16 15:40 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-16 15:44 ` Waiman Long
2018-10-16 15:47 ` Christian Brauner
2018-10-16 15:53 ` Waiman Long
2018-10-16 15:59 ` Christian Brauner
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=20181016152100.zg2pmyk6puc5qsr5@brauner.io \
--to=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=joe.lawrence@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).