linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: increase BINPRM_BUF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20181113124305.73b8ac9e5a2ef9b18d3444b2@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:43:05 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ben Woodard <woodard@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: increase BINPRM_BUF_SIZE to 256

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:55:58 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> > However it would be basically cost-free to increase
> > BINPRM_BUF_SIZE up to the point where sizeof(struct linux_binprm) ==
> > PAGE_SIZE?
> 
> I don't think we should take sizeof(struct linux_binprm) into account, the
> new members can come at any time and we can never decrease BINPRM_BUF_SIZE.

My main point is..  why not make BINPRM_BUF_SIZE a lot larger than 256?