Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 19:13:57 +0100
From:   John Wood <john.wood@gmx.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc:     John Wood <john.wood@gmx.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] securtiy/brute: Detect a brute force attack
Message-ID: <20210223181357.GA3068@ubuntu>
References: <20210221154919.68050-1-john.wood@gmx.com>
 <20210221154919.68050-4-john.wood@gmx.com>
 <085f8f05-243e-fbf0-3f9c-ea011511a296@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <085f8f05-243e-fbf0-3f9c-ea011511a296@infradead.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 06:25:51PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Hi--
>
> On 2/21/21 7:49 AM, John Wood wrote:
> >
> > +/**
> > + * print_fork_attack_running() - Warn about a fork brute force attack=
.
> > + */
> > +static inline void print_fork_attack_running(void)
> > +{
> > +	pr_warn("Fork brute force attack detected [%s]\n", current->comm);
> > +}
>
> Do these pr_warn() calls need to be rate-limited so that they don't
> flood the kernel log?

I think it is not necessary since when a brute force attack through the fo=
rk
system call is detected, a fork warning appears only once. Then, all the
offending tasks involved in the attack are killed. But if the parent try t=
o run
again the same app already killed, a new crash will trigger a brute force =
attack
through the execve system call, then this parent is killed, and a new warn=
ing
message appears. Now, the parent and childs are killed, the attacks are
mitigated and only a few messages (one or two) have been shown in the kern=
el
log.

Thanks,
John Wood

> > +/**
> > + * print_exec_attack_running() - Warn about an exec brute force attac=
k.
> > + * @stats: Statistical data shared by all the fork hierarchy processe=
s.
> > + *
> > + * The statistical data shared by all the fork hierarchy processes ca=
nnot be
> > + * NULL.
> > + *
> > + * Before showing the process name it is mandatory to find a process =
that holds
> > + * a pointer to the exec statistics.
> > + *
> > + * Context: Must be called with tasklist_lock and brute_stats_ptr_loc=
k held.
> > + */
> > +static void print_exec_attack_running(const struct brute_stats *stats=
)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *p;
> > +	struct brute_stats **p_stats;
> > +	bool found =3D false;
> > +
> > +	for_each_process(p) {
> > +		p_stats =3D brute_stats_ptr(p);
> > +		if (*p_stats =3D=3D stats) {
> > +			found =3D true;
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	if (WARN(!found, "No exec process\n"))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	pr_warn("Exec brute force attack detected [%s]\n", p->comm);
> > +}
>
>
> thanks.
> --
> ~Randy
>