[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080304200701.GA5599@ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:07:01 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@...glemail.com>,
aaw <aaw@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
michael.kerrisk@...il.com, carlos@...esourcery.com,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, drepper@...hat.com,
mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] RLIMIT_ARG_MAX
On Fri 2008-02-29 09:29:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > ... and what's the point? We've never had it before, nobody has ever cared,
> > > and the whole notion is just stupid. Why would we want to limit it? The
> > > only thing that the kernel *cares* about is the stack size - any other
> > > size limits are always going to be arbitrary.
> >
> > Well, don't think of limiting it, but querying the limit.
> >
> > Programs like xargs would need to know how much to stuff into argv
> > before starting a new invocation.
>
> But they already can't really do that. More importantly, isn't it better
> to just use the whole stack size then (or just return "stack size / 4" or
> whatever)?
Using whole stack smells like a security problem to me.
...pass so much parameters that passwd dies on stack shortage. Make
sure passwd grabbed some system-wide lock before dying.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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