[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+V_kJk-Lu=u82CrA291EPpgJtX951EKigprozXt7=ORA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:26:11 -0500
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] arm: Properly account for stack randomization
and stack guard gap
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:28 AM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr> wrote:
>
> This commit takes care of stack randomization and stack guard gap when
> computing mmap base address and checks if the task asked for randomization.
> This fixes the problem uncovered and not fixed for arm here:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1429066.html
Please use the official archive instead. This includes headers, linked
patches, etc:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170622200033.25714-1-riel@redhat.com
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
> ---
> arch/arm/mm/mmap.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmap.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmap.c
> index f866870db749..bff3d00bda5b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -18,8 +18,9 @@
> (((pgoff)<<PAGE_SHIFT) & (SHMLBA-1)))
>
> /* gap between mmap and stack */
> -#define MIN_GAP (128*1024*1024UL)
> -#define MAX_GAP ((TASK_SIZE)/6*5)
> +#define MIN_GAP (128*1024*1024UL)
Might as well fix this up as SIZE_128M
> +#define MAX_GAP ((TASK_SIZE)/6*5)
> +#define STACK_RND_MASK (0x7ff >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 12))
STACK_RND_MASK is already defined so you don't need to add it here, yes?
> static int mmap_is_legacy(struct rlimit *rlim_stack)
> {
> @@ -35,6 +36,15 @@ static int mmap_is_legacy(struct rlimit *rlim_stack)
> static unsigned long mmap_base(unsigned long rnd, struct rlimit *rlim_stack)
> {
> unsigned long gap = rlim_stack->rlim_cur;
> + unsigned long pad = stack_guard_gap;
> +
> + /* Account for stack randomization if necessary */
> + if (current->flags & PF_RANDOMIZE)
> + pad += (STACK_RND_MASK << PAGE_SHIFT);
> +
> + /* Values close to RLIM_INFINITY can overflow. */
> + if (gap + pad > gap)
> + gap += pad;
>
> if (gap < MIN_GAP)
> gap = MIN_GAP;
> --
> 2.20.1
>
But otherwise, yes:
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists