Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1299271
| From | Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets |
| Date | 2015-12-30 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qLkLU-4kl-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qKGOu-3bZ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <qL3L3-1P0-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qL9dM-5lK-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 29.12.2015 21:35, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 03:48:45PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> On 28.12.2015 15:14, Willy Tarreau wrote: >>> It is possible for a process to allocate and accumulate far more FDs than >>> the process' limit by sending them over a unix socket then closing them >>> to keep the process' fd count low. >>> >>> This change addresses this problem by keeping track of the number of FDs >>> in flight per user and preventing non-privileged processes from having >>> more FDs in flight than their configured FD limit. >>> >>> Reported-by: socketpair@gmail.com >>> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> >> >> Thanks for the patch! >> >> I think this does not close the DoS attack completely as we duplicate >> fds if the reader uses MSG_PEEK on the unix domain socket and thus >> clones the fd. Have I overlooked something? > > I didn't know this behaviour. However, then the fd remains in flight, right ? > So as long as it's not removed from the queue, the sender cannot add more > than its FD limit. I may be missing something obvious though :-/ Yes, it remains in flight. The MSG_PEEK code should not be harmful and the patch is good as is. I first understood from the published private thread, that it is possible for a program to exceed the rlimit of fds. But the DoS is only by keeping the fds in flight and not attaching them to any program. __alloc_fd, called on the receiver side, does check for the rlimit maximum anyway, so I don't see a loophole anymore: Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> Another idea would be to add the amount of memory used to manage the fds to sock_rmem/wmem but I don't see any advantages or disadvantages. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-12-28 15:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> - 2015-12-29 15:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> - 2015-12-29 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-12-29 21:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> - 2015-12-30 10:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-12-30 12:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 14:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-12-31 07:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2015-12-31 08:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] unix: properly account for FDs passed over unix sockets One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2015-12-31 11:40 +0100
csiph-web