[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:10:21 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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. Instead, just before the
> point of no return, check how much stack space is already used and, if
> it's more than an appropriate threshold (e.g. 1/4 of the rlimit),
> abort. Sure, this adds overhead if we're going to abort, but does
> that really matter?
We should avoid using up tons of memory and then failing. Better to
cap it as we use it. Plumbing a sane value into this shouldn't be hard
at all. Just making this a hardcoded 2MB seems sane (1/4 of 8MB).
> I don't see why using rlimit for layout control makes any sense
> whatsoever. Is there some historical reason we need that? As far as
> I can see (on insufficient inspection) is that the kernel is trying to
> guarantee that, if we have so much arg crap that our remaining stack
> is less than 128k, then we don't exceed our limit by a little bit.
IIUC, this is a big deal on 32-bit. Unlimited stack triggers top-down
mmap instead of bottom-up. I mean, I'd be delighted to get rid of
this, but I thought it was relied on by userspace.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists