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, 8 Jun 2021 16:19:31 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     John Wood <john.wood@gmx.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] Fork brute force attack mitigation
Message-ID: <202106081616.EC17DC1D0D@keescook>
References: <20210605150405.6936-1-john.wood@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210605150405.6936-1-john.wood@gmx.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 05:03:57PM +0200, John Wood wrote:
> [...]
> the kselftest to avoid the detection ;) ). So, in this version, to track
> all the statistical data (info related with application crashes), the
> extended attributes feature for the executable files are used. The xattr is
> also used to mark the executables as "not allowed" when an attack is
> detected. Then, the execve system call rely on this flag to avoid following
> executions of this file.

I have some concerns about this being actually usable and not creating
DoS situations. For example, let's say an attacker had found a hard-to-hit
bug in "sudo", and starts brute forcing it. When the brute LSM notices,
it'll make "sudo" unusable for the entire system, yes?

And a reboot won't fix it, either, IIUC.

It seems like there is a need to track "user" running "prog", and have
that be timed out. Are there use-cases here where that wouldn't be
sufficient?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook