[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1499297724.2707.56.camel@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:35:24 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.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 10:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I ended up with the following two patches, which seem to deal with
> > both the Java and Rust regressions. These don't touch the
> > stack-grows-up paths at all because Rust doesn't run on those
> > architectures and the Java weirdness is i386-specific.
> >
> > They definitely need longer commit messages and comments, but aside
> > from that do these look reasonable?
>
> I thin kthey both look reasonable, but I think we might still want to
> massage things a bit (cutting down the quoting to a minimum, hopefully
> leaving enough context to still make sense):
>
> > Subject: [1/2] mmap: Skip a single VM_NONE mapping when checking the stack gap
> >
> > prev = vma->vm_prev;
> > + if (prev && !(prev->vm_flags & (VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC)))
> > + prev = prev->vm_prev;
> > if (prev && prev->vm_end > gap_addr) {
>
> Do we just want to ignore the user-supplied guard mapping, or do we
> want to say "if the user does a guard mapping, we use that *instead*
> of our stack gap"?
>
> IOW, instead of "prev = prev->vm_prev;" and continuing, maybe we want
> to just return "ok".
Rust effectively added a second guard page to the main thread stack.
But it does not (yet) implement stack probing
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/16012) so I think it will
benefit from the kernel's larger stack guard gap.
> > Subject: [2/2] mmap: Avoid mapping anywhere within the full stack extent if finite
>
> This is good thinking, but no, I don't think the "if finite" is right.
>
> I've seen people use "really big values" as replacement for
> RLIM_INIFITY, for various reasons.
>
> We've had huge confusion about RLIM_INFINITY over the years - look for
> things like COMPAT_RLIM_OLD_INFINITY to see the kinds of confusions
> we've had.
That sounds familiar...
> Some people just use MAX_LONG etc, which is *not* the same as
> RLIM_INFINITY, but in practice ends up doing the same thing. Yadda
> yadda.
>
> So I'm personally leery of checking and depending on "exactly
> RLIM_INIFITY", because I've seen it go wrong so many times.
>
> And I think your second patch breaks that "use a really large value to
> approximate infinity" case that definitely has existed as a pattern.
Right. Well that seems to leave us with remembering the MAP_FIXED flag
and using that as the condition to ignore the previous mapping.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain. - Lily
Tomlin
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists