linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: Tighten up cmdline_parse_stack_guard

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:24:32 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: Tighten up cmdline_parse_stack_guard_gap()

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 08:47:12AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/29/23 18:21, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:52:12AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> -static int __init cmdline_parse_stack_guard_gap(char *p)
> >> +static int __init cmdline_parse_stack_guard_gap(char *str)
> >>  {
> >>  	unsigned long val;
> >> -	char *endptr;
> >>  
> >> -	val = simple_strtoul(p, &endptr, 10);
> >> -	if (!*endptr)
> >> -		stack_guard_gap = val << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >> +	if (!str)
> >> +		return 0;
> > 
> > Please explain how this function can be called with a NULL pointer.
> 
> This is an additional check just in case. We have similar constructs
> in the following __setup() functions as well.

In case of _what_?  Somebody goes insane and decides to start calling
__setup functions with NULL pointers?  We don't test "Did the VFS call
this filesystem with a NULL inode pointer" because that would make
ZERO sense.  Defensive programming doesn't need to defend against an
insane kernel core.

> __setup("hashdist=", set_hashdist)
> __setup("numa_balancing=", setup_numabalancing)
> __setup("transparent_hugepage=", setup_transparent_hugepage)

Those should have this stupid NULL check removed.

> > Now you've removed the abillity for someone to say stack_guard_gap=0,
> > which seems potentially useful.
> 
> In that case, should the following two scenarios be differentiated ?
> 
> * stack_guard_gap=	- Retains DEFAULT_STACK_GUARD_GAP
> * stack_guard_gap=0	- Changes to 0 pages

I don't know.  You appear to have run into the scenario where
'stack_guard_gap=' was specified.  What did you expect it to do?