[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Regression: commit da029c11e6b1 broke toybox xargs.
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Kees Cook <> wrote:
>> If we didn't do the "but no more than 75% of _STK_LIM", and moved to
>> something like "check stack utilization after loading the binary", we
>> end up in the position where the kernel is past the point of no return
>> (so instead of E2BIG, the execve()ing process just SEGVs), which is
>> much harder to debug or recover from (i.e. there's no process left to
>> return from the execve() from).
> Yeah, we've had that problem in the past, and it's the worst of all worlds.
> You can still trigger it (set RLIMIT_DATA to something much too small,
> for example, and then generate more than that by just repeating the
> same argument multiple times so that the execve() user doesn't trigger
> the limit, but the newly executed process does).
> But it should really be something that you need to be truly insane to trigger.
> I think we still don't know whether we're going to be suid at the time
> we copy the arguments, do we?

We don't. (In fact, arg copying happens before we've even figured out
which binfmt is involved.) I lifted it to just before the point of no
return, but moving it before arg copying looks very hard (which
contributed to why we went with the implementation we did).

> So it's pretty painful to make the limits different for suid and
> non-suid binaries.

I would agree.


Kees Cook
Pixel Security

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-04 02:38    [W:0.074 / U:3.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site