lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/8] pipe: fix limit checking in pipe_set_size()
From
Date
On 08/19/2016 07:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> The limit checking in pipe_set_size() (used by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
> has the following problems:
[...]
> @@ -1030,6 +1030,7 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
> {
> struct pipe_buffer *bufs;
> unsigned int size, nr_pages;
> + long ret = 0;
>
> size = round_pipe_size(arg);
> nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> @@ -1037,13 +1038,26 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
> if (!nr_pages)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && size > pipe_max_size)
> - return -EPERM;
> + account_pipe_buffers(pipe->user, pipe->buffers, nr_pages);
>
> - if ((too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(pipe->user) ||
> - too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(pipe->user)) &&
> - !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> - return -EPERM;
> + /*
> + * If trying to increase the pipe capacity, check that an
> + * unprivileged user is not trying to exceed various limits.
> + * (Decreasing the pipe capacity is always permitted, even
> + * if the user is currently over a limit.)
> + */
> + if (nr_pages > pipe->buffers) {
> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) && size > pipe_max_size) {
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + goto out_revert_acct;
> + } else if ((too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(pipe->user) ||
> + too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(pipe->user)) &&
> + !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE) &&
> + !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> + ret = -EPERM;
> + goto out_revert_acct;
> + }
> + }

I'm slightly worried about not checking arg/nr_pages before we pass it
on to account_pipe_buffers().

The potential problem happens if the user passes a very large number
which will overflow pipe->user->pipe_bufs.

On 32-bit, sizeof(int) == sizeof(long), so if they pass arg = INT_MAX
then round_pipe_size() returns INT_MAX. Although it's true that the
accounting is done in terms of pages and not bytes, so you'd need on the
order of (1 << 13) = 8192 processes hitting the limit at the same time
in order to make it overflow, which seems a bit unlikely.

(See https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/12/215 for another discussion on the
limit checking)

Is there any reason why we couldn't do the (size > pipe_max_size) check
before calling account_pipe_buffers()?


Vegard

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:57    [W:0.067 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site