Code: static void umount_tree(struct mount *mnt, enum umount_tree_flags how)
{
	LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
	struct mount *p;

	if (how & UMOUNT_PROPAGATE)
		propagate_mount_unlock(mnt);

	/* Gather the mounts to umount */
	for (p = mnt; p; p = next_mnt(p, mnt)) {
		p->mnt.mnt_flags |= MNT_UMOUNT;
		list_move(&p->mnt_list, &tmp_list);
	}

	/* Hide the mounts from mnt_mounts */
	list_for_each_entry(p, &tmp_list, mnt_list) {
		list_del_init(&p->mnt_child);
	}

	/* Add propogated mounts to the tmp_list */
	if (how & UMOUNT_PROPAGATE)
 		propagate_umount(&tmp_list);
 
 	while (!list_empty(&tmp_list)) {
 		bool disconnect;
 		p = list_first_entry(&tmp_list, struct mount, mnt_list);
 		list_del_init(&p->mnt_expire);
 		list_del_init(&p->mnt_list);
		__touch_mnt_namespace(p->mnt_ns);
 		p->mnt_ns = NULL;
 		if (how & UMOUNT_SYNC)
 			p->mnt.mnt_flags |= MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT;

		disconnect = disconnect_mount(p, how);

		pin_insert_group(&p->mnt_umount, &p->mnt_parent->mnt,
				 disconnect ? &unmounted : NULL);
		if (mnt_has_parent(p)) {
			mnt_add_count(p->mnt_parent, -1);
			if (!disconnect) {
				/* Don't forget about p */
				list_add_tail(&p->mnt_child, &p->mnt_parent->mnt_mounts);
			} else {
				umount_mnt(p);
			}
		}
		change_mnt_propagation(p, MS_PRIVATE);
	}
}

Vulnerability Type: DoS 
CWE ID: CWE-400
Summary: fs/namespace.c in the Linux kernel before 4.9 does not restrict how many mounts may exist in a mount namespace, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (memory consumption and deadlock) via MS_BIND mount system calls, as demonstrated by a loop that triggers exponential growth in the number of mounts.
Commit Message: mnt: Add a per mount namespace limit on the number of mounts

CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com> pointed out that the semantics
of shared subtrees make it possible to create an exponentially
increasing number of mounts in a mount namespace.

    mkdir /tmp/1 /tmp/2
    mount --make-rshared /
    for i in $(seq 1 20) ; do mount --bind /tmp/1 /tmp/2 ; done

Will create create 2^20 or 1048576 mounts, which is a practical problem
as some people have managed to hit this by accident.

As such CVE-2016-6213 was assigned.

Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> described the situation for autofs users
as follows:

> The number of mounts for direct mount maps is usually not very large because of
> the way they are implemented, large direct mount maps can have performance
> problems. There can be anywhere from a few (likely case a few hundred) to less
> than 10000, plus mounts that have been triggered and not yet expired.
>
> Indirect mounts have one autofs mount at the root plus the number of mounts that
> have been triggered and not yet expired.
>
> The number of autofs indirect map entries can range from a few to the common
> case of several thousand and in rare cases up to between 30000 and 50000. I've
> not heard of people with maps larger than 50000 entries.
>
> The larger the number of map entries the greater the possibility for a large
> number of active mounts so it's not hard to expect cases of a 1000 or somewhat
> more active mounts.

So I am setting the default number of mounts allowed per mount
namespace at 100,000.  This is more than enough for any use case I
know of, but small enough to quickly stop an exponential increase
in mounts.  Which should be perfect to catch misconfigurations and
malfunctioning programs.

For anyone who needs a higher limit this can be changed by writing
to the new /proc/sys/fs/mount-max sysctl.

Tested-by: CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>