lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 04:01:28 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>, Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] STAGING/lustre: limit follow_link recursion using stack space. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:37:38PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > lustre's ->follow_link() uses a lot of stack space and so > need to limit symlink recursion based on stack size. > > It currently tests current->link_count, but that will soon > become private to fs/namei.c. > So instead base on actual available stack space. > This patch aborts recursive symlinks in less than 2K of space > is available. This seems consistent with current code, but > hasn't been tested. BTW, in the best case that logics is fishy. We have "up to 5 levels with 4Kb stack and up to 7 with 8Kb one". Could somebody manage to dig out the reasons for such limits? Preferably along with the kernel version where the overflows had been observed, both for 4K and 8K cases. I'm very tempted to rip that thing out in the "kill link_path_walk() recursion completely" series... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists