[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1499268300.2707.41.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 16:25:00 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Helge Diller <deller@....de>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Qualys Security Advisory <qsa@...lys.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ximin Luo <infinity0@...ian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas
On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 16:23 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 05-07-17 13:19:40, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 16:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We have:
> > > >
> > > > bottom = 0xff803fff
> > > > sp = 0xffffb178
> > > >
> > > > The relevant mappings are:
> > > >
> > > > ff7fc000-ff7fd000 rwxp 00000000 00:00 0
> > > > fffdd000-ffffe000 rw-p 00000000 00:00
> > > > 0 [stack]
> > >
> > > Ugh. So that stack is actually 8MB in size, but the alloca() is about
> > > to use up almost all of it, and there's only about 28kB left between
> > > "bottom" and that 'rwx' mapping.
> > >
> > > Still, that rwx mapping is interesting: it is a single page, and it
> > > really is almost exactly 8MB below the stack.
> > >
> > > In fact, the top of stack (at 0xffffe000) is *exactly* 8MB+4kB from
> > > the top of that odd one-page allocation (0xff7fd000).
> > >
> > > Can you find out where that is allocated? Perhaps a breakpoint on
> > > mmap, with a condition to catch that particular one?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Found it, and it's now clear why only i386 is affected:
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/tip/src/os/linux/vm/os_linux.cpp#l4852
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/hotspot/file/tip/src/os_cpu/linux_x86/vm/os_linux_x86.cpp#l881
>
> This is really worrying. This doesn't look like a gap at all. It is a
> mapping which actually contains a code and so we should absolutely not
> allow to scribble over it. So I am afraid the only way forward is to
> allow per process stack gap and run this particular program to have a
> smaller gap. We basically have two ways. Either /proc/<pid>/$file or
> a prctl inherited on exec. The later is a smaller code. What do you
> think?
Distributions can do that, but what about all the other apps out there
using JNI and private copies of the JRE?
Soemthing I noticed is that Java doesn't immediately use MAP_FIXED.
Look at os::pd_attempt_reserve_memory_at(). If the first, hinted,
mmap() doesn't return the hinted address it then attempts to allocate
huge areas (I'm not sure how intentional this is) and unmaps the
unwanted parts. Then os::workaround_expand_exec_shield_cs_limit() re-
mmap()s the wanted part with MAP_FIXED. If this fails at any point it
is not a fatal error.
So if we change vm_start_gap() to take the stack limit into account
(when it's finite) that should neutralise
os::workaround_expand_exec_shield_cs_limit(). I'll try this.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Anthony's Law of Force: Don't force it, get a larger hammer.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists