From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon-cxoSlKxDwOJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Containers
<containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn"
<serge.hallyn-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
kernel-hardening-ZwoEplunGu1jrUoiu81ncdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] user_ns: fix missing limiting of user_ns counts
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:22:34 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121229052234.GA4153@cachalot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wqw15wqb.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 20:05 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vasily Kulikov <segoon-cxoSlKxDwOJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> writes:
>
> > Currently there is completely no limiting in number of user namespaces
> > created by unprivileged users. One can freely create thousands of
> > user_ns'es and exhaust kernel memory without even bumping in
> > RLIMIT_NPROC or similar.
>
> First for a proper sense of scale it will take roughly 14,000 to consume
> a megabyte. So it will take hundreds of millions of user namespaces to
> eat up all of kernel memory.
Yes, but you can freely create *any* number of nested userns by a loop:
for() {
unshare()
write to /proc/self/{u,g}id_map
}
> > The code needs several checks. First, noone should be able to create
> > user_ns of arbitrary depth. Besides kernel stack overflow one could
> > create too big depth to DoS processes belonging to other users by
> > forcing them to loop a long time in cap_capable called from some
> > ns_capable() (e.g. in case one does smth like "ls -R /proc").
>
> Where do you get a ns_capable call from "ls -R /proc" ?
E.g. if procfs is mounted with hidepid=2 then ls does
ptrace_may_access() check.
Thanks,
--
Vasily Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH/RFC] user_ns: fix missing limiting of user_ns counts
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:22:34 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121229052234.GA4153@cachalot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wqw15wqb.fsf@xmission.com>
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 20:05 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vasily Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> writes:
>
> > Currently there is completely no limiting in number of user namespaces
> > created by unprivileged users. One can freely create thousands of
> > user_ns'es and exhaust kernel memory without even bumping in
> > RLIMIT_NPROC or similar.
>
> First for a proper sense of scale it will take roughly 14,000 to consume
> a megabyte. So it will take hundreds of millions of user namespaces to
> eat up all of kernel memory.
Yes, but you can freely create *any* number of nested userns by a loop:
for() {
unshare()
write to /proc/self/{u,g}id_map
}
> > The code needs several checks. First, noone should be able to create
> > user_ns of arbitrary depth. Besides kernel stack overflow one could
> > create too big depth to DoS processes belonging to other users by
> > forcing them to loop a long time in cap_capable called from some
> > ns_capable() (e.g. in case one does smth like "ls -R /proc").
>
> Where do you get a ns_capable call from "ls -R /proc" ?
E.g. if procfs is mounted with hidepid=2 then ls does
ptrace_may_access() check.
Thanks,
--
Vasily Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasily Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] user_ns: fix missing limiting of user_ns counts
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:22:34 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121229052234.GA4153@cachalot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wqw15wqb.fsf@xmission.com>
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 20:05 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Vasily Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com> writes:
>
> > Currently there is completely no limiting in number of user namespaces
> > created by unprivileged users. One can freely create thousands of
> > user_ns'es and exhaust kernel memory without even bumping in
> > RLIMIT_NPROC or similar.
>
> First for a proper sense of scale it will take roughly 14,000 to consume
> a megabyte. So it will take hundreds of millions of user namespaces to
> eat up all of kernel memory.
Yes, but you can freely create *any* number of nested userns by a loop:
for() {
unshare()
write to /proc/self/{u,g}id_map
}
> > The code needs several checks. First, noone should be able to create
> > user_ns of arbitrary depth. Besides kernel stack overflow one could
> > create too big depth to DoS processes belonging to other users by
> > forcing them to loop a long time in cap_capable called from some
> > ns_capable() (e.g. in case one does smth like "ls -R /proc").
>
> Where do you get a ns_capable call from "ls -R /proc" ?
E.g. if procfs is mounted with hidepid=2 then ls does
ptrace_may_access() check.
Thanks,
--
Vasily Kulikov
http://www.openwall.com - bringing security into open computing environments
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-29 5:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-28 17:56 [PATCH/RFC] user_ns: fix missing limiting of user_ns counts Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-28 17:56 ` Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-28 17:56 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-28 18:43 ` Al Viro
2012-12-28 18:43 ` Al Viro
2012-12-28 18:43 ` [kernel-hardening] " Al Viro
[not found] ` <20121228184334.GZ4939-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>
2012-12-28 19:04 ` Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-28 19:04 ` Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-28 19:04 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-28 19:21 ` Al Viro
2012-12-28 19:21 ` Al Viro
2012-12-28 19:21 ` [kernel-hardening] " Al Viro
2012-12-29 4:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-29 4:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-29 4:05 ` [kernel-hardening] " Eric W. Biederman
2012-12-29 5:13 ` Al Viro
2012-12-29 5:13 ` Al Viro
[not found] ` <87wqw15wqb.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2012-12-29 5:13 ` Al Viro
2012-12-29 5:22 ` Vasily Kulikov [this message]
2012-12-29 5:22 ` Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-29 5:22 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-30 11:00 ` Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-30 11:00 ` Vasily Kulikov
2012-12-30 11:00 ` [kernel-hardening] " Vasily Kulikov
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=20121229052234.GA4153@cachalot \
--to=segoon-cxoslkxdwojwk0htik3j/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening-ZwoEplunGu1jrUoiu81ncdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=serge.hallyn-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.