LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
To: CGEL <cgel.zte@gmail.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn>,
	James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_user: add capability check when rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC) exceeds
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:07:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210803140702.f3rdnka3e2x6vj4r@wittgenstein> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210803100354.GA607722@www>

On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:03:54AM -0700, CGEL wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 01:23:31AM -0700, CGEL wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:59:30PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > [Ccing a few people that did the PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED changes]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hey Cgel,
> > > Hey Ran,
> > > 
> > > The gist seems to me that this code wants to make sure that a program
> > > can't successfully exec if it has gone through a set*id() transition
> > > while exceeding its RLIMIT_NPROC.
> > > 
> > > But I agree that the semantics here are a bit strange.
> > > 
> > > Iicu, a capable but non-INIT_USER caller getting PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED set
> > > during a set*id() transition wouldn't be able to exec right away if they
> > > still exceed their RLIMIT_NPROC at the time of exec. So their exec would
> > > fail in fs/exec.c:
> > > 
> > > 	if ((current->flags & PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED) &&
> > > 	    is_ucounts_overlimit(current_ucounts(), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
> > > 		retval = -EAGAIN;
> > > 		goto out_ret;
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > However, if the caller were to fork() right after the set*id()
> > > transition but before the exec while still exceeding their RLIMIT_NPROC
> > > then they would get PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED cleared (while the child would
> > > inherit it):
> > > 
> > > 	retval = -EAGAIN;
> > > 	if (is_ucounts_overlimit(task_ucounts(p), UCOUNT_RLIMIT_NPROC, rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC))) {
> > > 		if (p->real_cred->user != INIT_USER &&
> > > 		    !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > > 			goto bad_fork_free;
> > > 	}
> > > 	current->flags &= ~PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED;
> > > 
> > > which means a subsequent exec by the capable caller would now succeed
> > > even though they could still exceed their RLIMIT_NPROC limit.
> > > 
> > > So at first glance, it seems that set_user() should probably get the
> > > same check as it can be circumvented today unless I misunderstand the
> > > original motivation.
> > > 
> > > Christian
> > 
> > Hi Christian,
> > 
> > I think i didn't give enough information in the commit message.
> > When switch to a capable but non-INIT_SUER and the RLIMIT_NPROC limit already exceeded,
> > and calls these funcs:
> > 1. set_xxuid()->exec() 
> >              ---> fail
> > 2. set_xxuid()->fork()->exec()
> >              ---> success
> > Kernel should have the same behavior to uer space.
> > Also i think non init_user CAN exceed the limit when with proper capability,
> > so in the patch, set_user() clear PF_NPROC_EXCEEDED flag if capable()
> > returns true.
> 
> Hi, Christian
> 
> Do you have any further comments on this patch?
> is there anything i did not give enough infomation ?

Yeah, this is fine and how I understood it too. I don't see anything
obviously wrong with it and the weird detour workaround via fork() seems
inconsistent. So if I don't here anyone come up with a good reason the
current behavior makes sense I'll pick this up.

Christian

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-03 14:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-28  7:26 cgel.zte
2021-07-28 11:59 ` Christian Brauner
2021-07-30  8:23   ` CGEL
2021-08-03 10:03     ` CGEL
2021-08-03 14:07       ` Christian Brauner [this message]
2021-09-07 21:30         ` Solar Designer
2021-09-08 10:24           ` Solar Designer
2021-09-13 10:01             ` 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=20210803140702.f3rdnka3e2x6vj4r@wittgenstein \
    --to=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=cgel.zte@gmail.com \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] set_user: add capability check when rlimit(RLIMIT_NPROC) exceeds' \
    /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

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).