[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1499711385.6130.41.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:29:45 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...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>,
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 Mon, 2017-07-10 at 20:16 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> OK, I misread the code. 32b applications on 64b systems do top down
> by
> default and only if they override this by ADDR_COMPAT_LAYOUT
> personality. For some reason I thought that 32b userspace goes a
> different path and makes sure that they are always doing bottom up.
>
> Anyway even if somebody really needs to grow stack really large we
> have
> the personality to give them the legacy layout.
I think what will happen when rlimit_stack is RLIMIT_INFINITY
is that mmap_base will end up placing mm->mmap_base at 512MB
(task_size / 6 * 5 below the top of address space) for 32 bit
kernels, and we eventually fall back to a bottom-up search
if the space below mmap_base is exhausted (if it ever is).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists