[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298957601.20632.221121@goedel.fjf.gnu.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 06:33:21 +0100
From: Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenbach@...soft.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jkosina@...e.cz
Subject: Re: brk() should check
randomize_va_space rather then CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > how do you avoid race here?
> >
> > More precisely -- randomize_va_space can be changed in runtime, when
> > already running processess have been started with different
> > randomize_va_space value (and thus the shifting of mm->brk already
> > happened in arch_randomize_brk())
I see. So would it help setting mm->brk = mm->start_brk =
mm->end_code if randomize_va_space < 2 in load_elf_binary() (and
elsewhere if needed -- not sure if other binformats are affected)?
> Oh, and also see the commit
>
> commit 5520e89485252c759ee60d313e9422447659947b
> Author: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> Date: Thu Jan 13 15:47:23 2011 -0800
>
> brk: fix min_brk lower bound computation for COMPAT_BRK
>
> which is quite relevant here as well
AFAICS, this patch only changes the CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK case. I'm more
interested in the !CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK case (since my old binaries
work with CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK as is). Since e.g., Debian's default
kernel doesn't set CONFIG_COMPAT_BRK, I had hoped I could get them
to run by setting randomize_va_space to 0 or 1.
> (and you seem to be sending patch
> against code that doesn't have this patch applied).
Well, I used the last stable release; I hadn't noticed there was a
more recent change, sorry.
Frank
--
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