linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

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, 11 Feb 2010 23:16:06 +0100
From:	Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
CC:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	miltonm@....com, aeb@....nl, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit

On 02/10/2010 06:31 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> In message<20100210141016.4D18.A69D9226@...fujitsu.com>  you wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2010 10:51 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
>>>>>> I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's only one CONFIG_GROWSUP arch - parisc.
>>>>> Could someone please test it on parisc?
>>>
>>> I did.
>>>
>>>> How about doing:
>>>>     'ulimit -s 15; ls'
>>>> before and after the patch is applied.  Before it's applied, 'ls' should
>>>> be killed.  After the patch is applied, 'ls' should no longer be killed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm suggesting a stack limit of 15KB since it's small enough to trigger
>>>> 20*PAGE_SIZE.  Also 15KB not a multiple of PAGE_SIZE, which is a trickier
>>>> case to handle correctly with this code.
>>>>
>>>> 4K pages on parisc should be fine to test with.
>>>
>>> Mikey, thanks for the suggested test plan.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if your patch does it correct for parisc/stack-grows-up-case.
>>>
>>> I tested your patch on  a 4k pages kernel:
>>> root@...00:~# uname -a
>>> Linux c3000 2.6.33-rc7-32bit #221 Tue Feb 9 23:17:06 CET 2010 parisc GNU/Li
> nux
>>>
>>> Without your patch:
>>> root@...00:~# ulimit -s 15; ls
>>> Killed
>>> ->  correct.
>>>
>>> With your patch:
>>> root@...00:~# ulimit -s 15; ls
>>> Killed
>>> _or_:
>>> root@...00:~# ulimit -s 15; ls
>>> Segmentation fault
>>> ->  ??
>>>
>>> Any idea?
>>
>> My x86_64 box also makes segmentation fault. I think "ulimit -s 15" is too sm
> all stack for ls.
>> "ulimit -s 27; ls "  wroks perfectly fine.
>
> Arrh.  I asked Helge offline earlier to check what use to work on parisc
> on 2.6.31.
>
> I guess PPC has a nice clean non-bloated ABI :-D

Hi Mikey,

I tested again, and it works for me with "ulimit -s 27" as well (on a 4k, 32bit kernel).
Still, I'm not 100%  sure if your patch is correct.
Anyway, it seems to work.

But what makes me wonder is, why EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES is defined in pages at all.
You wrote in your patch description:
> This bug means that when limiting the stack to less the 20*PAGE_SIZE (eg.
> 80K on 4K pages or 'ulimit -s 79') all processes will be killed before
> they start.  This is particularly bad with 64K pages, where a ulimit below
> 1280K will kill every process.

Wouldn't it make sense to define and use EXTRA_STACK_VM_SIZE instead (e.g. as 20*4096 = 80k)?
This extra stack reservation should IMHO be independend of the actual kernel page size.

Helge
--
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/