linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] expand_downwards: don't require the gap if !vm

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzWKK5sLNbWjJ3gKn9KyGkYNJyxp=w==0FfRCgWgRvUYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2017 09:30:35 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] expand_downwards: don't require the gap if !vm_prev

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> If you think this is worth pursuing in upstream, just let me know and I
> can polish it, add a patch for the man page and other things.

Hmm. This doesn't look bad, except the bprm games there really look annoying.

Also, I'm wondering whether this should be per-thread - conceptually
"expand_stack()" really is a thread thing. All callers are using
"current", although it's not always obvious.

So I'm wondering if a slightly larger patch that simply made the
"limit" be an _argument_ to expand_stack() would clean up both of
these issues. The execve() use would simply pass in the stack limit,
and the fault users would pass in "current->expand_stack_limit".

Again, I'm not sure how many people really use multiple GROW_DOWN
stacks for threading, but it's conceptually the right thing to do, so
I think conceptually this should be per-thread. And the fact that it
might clean up the execve() thing makes me think it's the right thing
to do.

What do you think?

                 Linus