[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181113165557.GG30990@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:55:58 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 11/12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:09:56 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > /* sizeof(linux_binprm->buf) */
> > -#define BINPRM_BUF_SIZE 128
> > +#define BINPRM_BUF_SIZE 256
> >
> > #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_BINFMTS_H */
>
> It does seem a rather silly restriction, and it's tempting to suggest
> reworking the code so that linux_binprm.buf is dynamically sized to
> accommodate even ludicrously large strings.
I actually tried to do this ;)
Of course this is possible, but we need some limits anyway, we need to
read the file until we find '\n' or '\0' in kmalloc/vmalloc'ed buffer,
then split and copy the strings to bprm->vma in reverse order.
So I decided to make the trivial change for now and (hopefully) forget
about this problem.
> 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.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists