[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:03:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, 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: [RFC][PATCH] exec: Use init rlimits for setuid exec
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> How about a much simpler solution: don't read rlimit at all in
> copy_strings(), let alone try to enforce it.
People have historically relied on E2BIG and then splitting things
into multiple chunks (ie do the whole 'xargs' thing).
But I agree that *if* we abort cleanly with E2BIG, then it's fine if
we copy a bit too much first. It's just that we need to check early
enough that an E2BIG error is possible (ie not after the "point of no
return").
And yes, I think we can get rid of the layout differences based on
rlimit. After all, if I read that right the thing currently clamps
that "gap" thing to 128MB anyway (and that's on the *low* side).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists