[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinY6GcgVKznUOcxh28xS3Dvy71Ln4vS-eV8F+na@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:34:14 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mlock/stack guard interaction fixup
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> Tony Luck already provided a VM_GROWSUP version.
>
> See: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/20/325
>
> [It is signed off by Tony Luc - but I guess they know each other ;-) ]
Tony Luc spends too much time looking at the To: and Cc: to make
sure that he spelled *other* peoples names correctly.
That patch doesn't apply any more because of the latest change to look
at vm_prev instead of calling find_vma() [N.B. the block comment above
check_stack_guard_page() still talks about find_vma()]. I can fix up my
patch ... but I have to wonder whether the new code doesn't leave a
hole again. It assumes that any VM_GROWSDOWN object that is
found below the current one is the result of the stack vma having been
split. But couldn't an attacker have used MAP_GROWSDOWN when
placing their sneaky stack smashing mapping just below the stack?
-Tony
--
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