Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:23:31 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> Cc: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec argument expansion can inappropriately trigger OOM-killer On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 05:56:48PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > IMHO unlimited should mean unlimited. In general, I'd agree, however let's recall that back in 2.2 days we introduced strnlen_user() and the "max" argument to count() to prevent a userspace program from making the kernel loop busily for too long. IIRC, prior to that fix, I was able to cause the kernel to loop for tens of minutes in a single execve() call on an Alpha with 128 MB RAM, by using repeated mappings of the same pages (almost 200 GB total). Now it appears that, besides the issue that started this thread, the same problem I mentioned above got re-introduced. We still have strnlen_user() and the "max" argument to count(), but we no longer have hard limits for "max". Someone set MAX_ARG_STRINGS to 0x7FFFFFFF, and this is just too much. MAX_ARG_STRLEN is set to 32 pages, and these two combined allow a userspace program to make the kernel loop for days. So I think that we should re-introduce some artificial limit(s), maybe adjustable by root (by the host system's real root only when container virtualization is involved). Maybe we should lower MAX_ARG_STRINGS and/or maybe we should limit the portion of stack space usable for argv to, say, 0.75 GB (or even less). > So, on that score, I'd leave this > constraint out and just say whatever deficiencies in the OOM killer (or in > whatever should make a manifestly too-large allocation get ENOMEM) should > just be fixed separately. I think the "OOM killer problem" should be fixed too. > But that aside, I'll just consider the intent stated in the comment in > get_arg_page: > * Limit to 1/4-th the stack size for the argv+env strings. > * This ensures that: > * - the remaining binfmt code will not run out of stack space, > * - the program will have a reasonable amount of stack left > * to work from. > To effect "1/4th the stack size", a cap at TASK_SIZE/4 does make some sense, > since TASK_SIZE is less than RLIM_INFINITY even in the pure 32-bit world, > and that is the true theoretical limit on stack size. > > The trouble here, both for that stated intent, and for this "exploit", > is which TASK_SIZE that is on a biarch machine. In fact, it's the > TASK_SIZE of the process that called execve. (get_arg_page is called > from copy_strings, from do_execve before search_binary_handler--i.e., > before anything has looked at the file to decide whether it's going to > be a 32-bit or 64-bit task on exec.) If it's a 32-bit process exec'ing > a 64-bit program, it's the 32-bit TASK_SIZE (perhaps as little as 3GB). > So that's a limit of 0.75GB on a 64-bit program, which might actually do > just fine with 2 or 3GB. If it's a 64-bit process exec'ing a 32-bit > program, it's the 64-bit TASK_SIZE (128TB on x86-64). So that's a limit > of 32TB, which is perhaps not that helpfully less than 2PB minus 1 byte > (RLIM_INFINITY/4) as far as preventing any over-allocation DoS in practice. That's a very good point! > If you want to constrain it this way, it's probably simpler just to use > a smaller hard limit for RLIM_STACK at boot time (and hence system-wide). Right. > But it sounds like all you really need is to fix the OOM/allocation > behavior for huge stack allocations. No, we need both. Additionally, 64bit_dos.c mentions that "it triggers a BUG() as the stack tries to expand around the address space when shifted". Perhaps limiting the stack size would deal with that, but maybe the "bug" needs to be patched elsewhere as well. grsecurity has the following hunk: @@ -505,7 +520,8 @@ static int shift_arg_pages(struct vm_are unsigned long new_end = old_end - shift; struct mmu_gather *tlb; - BUG_ON(new_start > new_end); + if (new_start >= new_end || new_start < mmap_min_addr) + return -EFAULT; /* * ensure there are no vmas between where we want to go which is likely part of a fix (but not the entire fix) for what the comment in 64bit_dos.c refers to. However, I was not able to trigger the BUG_ON() on RHEL5'ish kernels by simply running the 64bit_dos program (64-bit to 32-bit exec) on two systems, one with 2 GB RAM, the other with 4 GB. Of course, I set "ulimit -s unlimited" first. On the 2 GB system, I saw the OOM killer problem (several other processes got killed before 64bit_dos was killed as well). On the 4 GB system, exec succeeded (after looping in the kernel for a few seconds, and then the newly started program failed because of its address space exhaustion). Maybe the BUG is only triggerable on certain other kernel versions, or maybe I didn't try hard enough (I certainly did not try very hard - I did not review the code closely). Someone could want to look into this aspect as well. grsecurity's added check against mmap_min_addr (and the reference to it in the "exploit's" comment) is also very curious. It can be just a way to avoid triggering another BUG() elsewhere, or it can be just an extra hardening measure - but it could also be "for real". We could want to double-check that there wasn't an mmap_min_addr bypass possible here. Overall, there are multiple issues here (maybe up to four?) and multiple things to review the code for. Does anyone (with more time than me) want to look into these for real? (I sure hope so.) Thanks, Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.