Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] sysctl: handle overflow for file-max

[Christian Brauner]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:25:42AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 11:21 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2018 06:55 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >>> Currently, when writing
> >>>
> >>> echo 18446744073709551616 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
> >>>
> >>> /proc/sys/fs/file-max will overflow and be set to 0. That quickly
> >>> crashes the system.
> >>> This commit explicitly caps the value for file-max to ULONG_MAX.
> >>>
> >>> Note, this isn't technically necessary since proc_get_long() will already
> >>> return ULONG_MAX. However, two reason why we still should do this:
> >>> 1. it makes it explicit what the upper bound of file-max is instead of
> >>>    making readers of the code infer it from proc_get_long() themselves
> >>> 2. other tunebles than file-max may want to set a lower max value than
> >>>    ULONG_MAX and we need to enable __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax() to handle
> >>>    such cases too
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> v0->v1:
> >>> - if max value is < than ULONG_MAX use max as upper bound
> >>> - (Dominik) remove double "the" from commit message
> >>> ---
> >>>  kernel/sysctl.c | 4 ++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> >>> index 97551eb42946..226d4eaf4b0e 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> >>> @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused one = 1;
> >>>  static int __maybe_unused two = 2;
> >>>  static int __maybe_unused four = 4;
> >>>  static unsigned long one_ul = 1;
> >>> +static unsigned long ulong_max = ULONG_MAX;
> >>>  static int one_hundred = 100;
> >>>  static int one_thousand = 1000;
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
> >>> @@ -1696,6 +1697,7 @@ static struct ctl_table fs_table[] = {
> >>>  		.maxlen		= sizeof(files_stat.max_files),
> >>>  		.mode		= 0644,
> >>>  		.proc_handler	= proc_doulongvec_minmax,
> >>> +		.extra2		= &ulong_max,
> >> What is the point of having a maximum value of ULONG_MAX anyway? No
> >> value you can put into a ulong type can be bigger than that.
> > This is changed in the new code to LONG_MAX. See the full thread for
> > context. There's also an additional explantion in the commit message.
> >
> >>>  	},
> >>>  	{
> >>>  		.procname	= "nr_open",
> >>> @@ -2795,6 +2797,8 @@ static int __do_proc_doulongvec_minmax(void *data, struct ctl_table *table, int
> >>>  				break;
> >>>  			if (neg)
> >>>  				continue;
> >>> +			if (max && val > *max)
> >>> +				val = *max;
> >>>  			val = convmul * val / convdiv;
> >>>  			if ((min && val < *min) || (max && val > *max))
> >>>  				continue;
> >> This does introduce a change in behavior. Previously the out-of-bound
> >> value is ignored, now it is capped at its maximum. This is a
> >> user-visible change.
> > Not completely true though. Try
> >
> > echo 18446744073709551616 > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
> >
> > on a system you find acceptable loosing.
> > So this is an acceptable user-visible change I'd say. But I'm open to
> > other suggestions.
> 
> I am not saying this is unacceptable. I just say this is a user-visible
> change and so should be documented somehow. BTW, you cap the max value,

Sure, I'll update linux manpages and I can CC stable on the next round.

> but not the min value. So there is inconsistency. I would say you either
> do both, or none of them.

The min value is 0. I don't think it needs to be set explicitly. I just
kept the max value because it is != ULONG_MAX but LONG_MAX for file-max.