[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120228151333.GA3664@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:13:33 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On 02/27, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> >> +static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
> >> +{
> >> + struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> >> + unsigned long fp_size = fprog->len * sizeof(struct sock_filter);
> >> + long ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > OK, this limits the memory PR_SET_SECCOMP can use.
> >
> > But,
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * If there is an existing filter, make it the prev and don't drop its
> >> + * task reference.
> >> + */
> >> + filter->prev = current->seccomp.filter;
> >> + current->seccomp.filter = filter;
> >> + return 0;
> >
> > this doesn't limit the number of filters, looks like a DoS.
> >
> > What if the application simply does prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, dummy_filter)
> > in an endless loop?
>
> It consumes a massive amount of kernel memory and, maybe, the OOM
> killer gives it a boot :)
may be ;) but most probably oom-killer kills another innocent task,
this memory is not accounted.
> I wasn't sure what the normal convention was for avoiding memory
> consumption by user processes. Should I just add a sysctl
Perhaps we can add a sysctl later, but personally I think that we
can start with some "arbitrary" #define BPF_MAXFILTERS.
> and a
> per-task counter for the max number of filters?
Do we really need the counter? attach_filter is not the fast path,
perhaps seccomp_attach_filter() could simply iterate the chain and
count the number?
In any case, if this hurts perfomance-wise then seccomp_run_filters()
has even more problems.
> I'm fine doing whatever makes sense here.
I am fine either way too.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
