linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and MAX_ARG

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:44:43 +0200
From:	Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer <mchouque@...e.fr>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ollie Wild <aaw@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and MAX_ARG_PAGES

Thank you for getting back to me.

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:27:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What does your "ulimit -s" say?

That's actually the first thing I checked.

mchouque - /usr/src/kernel/linux %ulimit -s
unlimited

And for the record, ulimit -a yields:
-t: cpu time (seconds)         unlimited
-f: file size (blocks)         unlimited
-d: data seg size (kbytes)     unlimited
-s: stack size (kbytes)        unlimited
-c: core file size (blocks)    0
-m: resident set size (kbytes) unlimited
-u: processes                  16375
-n: file descriptors           1024
-l: locked-in-memory size (kb) 32
-v: address space (kb)         unlimited
-x: file locks                 unlimited
-i: pending signals            16375
-q: bytes in POSIX msg queues  819200
-N 13:                         0
-N 14:                         0


> I suspect that you might hit the code that limits execve() arguments to 
> one quarter of the maximum stack size.
> 
> We could change that from 25% to something else (half? three quarters?), 
> but if you really are hitting that limit, it sounds like you may have a 
> really small stack size to begin with (ie if 25% is smaller than the old 
> argument size limit of 128kB, you're running with a stack limit of less 
> than half a meg, which sounds pretty dang small).
> 
> So I'd like to verify that the stack limit really is the issue, and not 
> something else.

Anything else you'd like me to try?

-- 
Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer                           mchouque@...e.fr
            The sun itself sees not till heaven clears.
	             -- William Shakespeare --
-
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/