lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: get_arg_page() && ptr_size accounting
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/11, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I like this patch! This is much cleaner.
>
> it's pity. cause this means I will have to actually test this change and
> (worse) write the changelog ;)

Hehe. I know this pain well! :)

>> > @@ -410,11 +365,6 @@ static int bprm_mm_init(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
>> > if (!mm)
>> > goto err;
>> >
>> > - /* Save current stack limit for all calculations made during exec. */
>> > - task_lock(current->group_leader);
>> > - bprm->rlim_stack = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_STACK];
>> > - task_unlock(current->group_leader);
>> > -
>>
>> I would prefer this hunk stay here since it will be more robust
>> against weird arch-specific things happening against rlim_stack. I had
>> to clean up some of these tests in arch code, so I'm nervous about
>> moving this further away. Here is before we call arch_bprm_mm_init(),
>> and I think it's better to do this as early as possible.
>
> Well, I don't reaally agree but I won't argue, this is cosmetic at least
> right now.

Probably what it deserves is a better comment to capture what I said
above. Maybe:

- /* Save current stack limit for all calculations made during exec. */
+ /* Do this before any arch-specific calls, like arch_bprm_mm_init(),
+ * so that bprm->rlim_stack is available for the architecture to use
+ * in case it needs it earlier that mm layout time.
+ */

>> BTW, in re-reading create_elf_tables() and its calculation of "items",
>> I realize the above should actually include the trailing NULL pointers
>> and argc, so it should be:
>>
>> ptr_size = (1 + bprm->argc + 1 + bprm->envc + 1) * sizeof(void *);
>
> Yes, I noticed this too. But can we do this later please?

Sure!

>> > - unsigned long p; /* current top of mem */
>> > + unsigned long p, p_min; /* current top of mem */
>>
>> Can you split this out to a separate line (with a new comment) to
>> avoid comment-confusion? Something like:
>>
>> unsigned long p; /* current top of mem */
>> unsigned long p_min; /* the minimum allowed mem position */
>
> OK, but "minimum allowed mem position" explains nothing... The comment
> should explain that ->p_min (can you suggest a better name?) is artificial
> marker pre-computed for rlim-like checks in copy_strings()...

How about something like:

... p; /* top of memory array reserved for stack */
... p_min; /* bottom of stack as computed in prepare_arg_pages() */

(Is "p" really only used for stack reservation tracking?)

> BTW. I think we can simply kill count(). But this needs another cleanup
> and dicsussion.

Hm, I think we need count for doing the sanity checking and allowing
the cond_resched() calls.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-12 22:43    [W:0.065 / U:8.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site