Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1464198
| From | Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise |
| Date | 2016-08-17 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s6UIx-r4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <s6Kzw-2mV-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <s6Kzw-2mV-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <s6LlU-2U7-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <s6T9M-7MR-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 08/16/2016 10:21 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> @@ -1132,8 +1136,8 @@ long pipe_fcntl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && size > pipe_max_size) {
>>> ret = -EPERM;
>>> goto out;
>>> - } else if ((too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(pipe->user) ||
>>> - too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(pipe->user)) &&
>>> + } else if ((too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(pipe->user, nr_pages) ||
>>> + too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(pipe->user, nr_pages)) &&
>>> !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) &&
>>> !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
>>> ret = -EPERM;
>>>
>>
>> Isn't there also a race where two or more concurrent pipe()/fnctl()
>> calls can together push us over the limits before the accounting is done?
>
> I guess there is!
>
>> I think there really ought to be a check after doing the accounting if
>> we really want to be meticulous here.
>
> Let me confirm what I understand from your comment: because of the race,
> then a user could subvert the checks and allocate an arbitrary amount
> of kernel memory for pipes. Right?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "a check after doing the accounting". Is not the
> only solution here some kind of lock around the check+accounting steps?
Instead of doing atomic_long_read() in the check + atomic_long_add() for
accounting we could do a single speculative atomic_long_add_return() and
then if it goes above the limit we can lower it again with atomic_sub()
when aborting the operation (if it doesn't go above the limit we don't
need to do anything).
Vegard
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 1/2] pipe: check limits only when increasing pipe capacity "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:20 +0200
[PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> - 2016-08-16 14:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> - 2016-08-17 00:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 10:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> - 2016-08-17 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> - 2016-08-17 22:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] pipe: make pipe user buffer limit checks more precise "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/2] pipe: check limits only when increasing pipe capacity Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com> - 2016-08-16 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/2] pipe: check limits only when increasing pipe capacity "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 07:20 +0200
csiph-web