On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:13:41PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
commit 20401d1058f3f841f35a594ac2fc1293710e55b9 upstream
This is CVE-2021-3669
sysvipc_find_ipc() was left with a costly way to check if the offset position fed to it is bigger than the total number of IPC IDs in use. So much so that the time it takes to iterate over /proc/sysvipc/* files grows exponentially for a custom benchmark that creates "N" SYSV shm segments and then times the read of /proc/sysvipc/shm (milliseconds):
12 msecs to read 1024 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 18 msecs to read 2048 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 65 msecs to read 4096 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm325 msecs to read 8192 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 1303 msecs to read 16384 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 5182 msecs to read 32768 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm
The root problem lies with the loop that computes the total amount of ids in use to check if the "pos" feeded to sysvipc_find_ipc() grew bigger than "ids->in_use". That is a quite inneficient way to get to the maximum index in the id lookup table, specially when that value is already provided by struct ipc_ids.max_idx.
This patch follows up on the optimization introduced via commit 15df03c879836 ("sysvipc: make get_maxid O(1) again") and gets rid of the aforementioned costly loop replacing it by a simpler checkpoint based on ipc_get_maxidx() returned value, which allows for a smooth linear increase in time complexity for the same custom benchmark:
2 msecs to read 1024 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 2 msecs to read 2048 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 4 msecs to read 4096 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 9 msecs to read 8192 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 19 msecs to read 16384 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shm 39 msecs to read 32768 segs from /proc/sysvipc/shmLink: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210809203554.1562989-1-aquini@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini aquini@redhat.com Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso dbueso@suse.de Acked-by: Manfred Spraul manfred@colorfullife.com Cc: Waiman Long llong@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini aquini@redhat.com
Marek, you did not sign off on this patch, why not?
And how did you test this? Are you sure it's really needed? Is that cve actually valid and something that you have had problems with in the real world?
thanks,
greg k-h