On 02/27, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
