From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
Robert Swiecki <swiecki@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Subject: Re: fs: sandboxed process brings host down
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:55:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160122215537.GH17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+b7TKbS6iaPLuo0iZStRJQ3BOBLTG1ZyC2nrh-=66bWDA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:38:40PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> My 2GB VM dies at around just 10-th iteration, is it normal?
> Each iteration consumes several hundreds of megs of kernel memory. And
> there seems to be exponential slowdown at around 5-th iteration.
> I understand that there can be lots of forms of a local DoS. But there
> seems to be something pathological about this particular one. And it
> happens only with sandboxing that is meant to reduce DoS
> possibilities...
Sandboxing == giving attacker to do mount without being root.
As for exponential - sure, you double the amount of mounts on each step
(if not quadruple - I don't have your code in front of me right now,
but ISTR two mount --rbind in there). More obvious form would be
for i in `seq 64`; do mkdir /tmp/$i; mount --rbind / /tmp/$i; done - there
the entire tree would be visible (and visibly exponential by the number of
iterations).
I doubt that the first iteration chews hundreds of megs, BTW. If you
really get two mount --rbind per iteration, you would have about a million-fold
increase of the number of mounts after ten iterations, and having that chew
2Gb is quite plausible; in that case the first iteration would eat about 10K
or so...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-22 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-22 21:06 fs: sandboxed process brings host down Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-22 21:21 ` Al Viro
2016-01-22 21:38 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2016-01-22 21:55 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-01-22 22:32 ` Robert Święcki
2016-01-22 21:46 ` Kees Cook
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=20160122215537.GH17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=keescook@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mszeredi@suse.cz \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
--cc=swiecki@google.com \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox