[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1496492216.21640.3.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2017 08:16:56 -0400
From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov
<oleg@...hat.com>, Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>, mhocko@...e.de,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, "benh@...nel.crashing.org"
<benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/mmap: properly account for
stack randomization in mmap_base
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:46 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM, <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> >
> > When RLIMIT_STACK is, for example, 256MB, the current code results
> > in
> > a gap between the top of the task and mmap_base of 256MB, failing to
> > take into account the amount by which the stack address was
> > randomized.
> > In other words, the stack gets less than RLIMIT_STACK space.
>
> Is this entirely accurate? The top of the task would be task_size, but
> this code is using task_size / 6 * 5 as the bottom of stack / top of
> mmap gap_max. Is there a reason for this?
MIN_GAP / MAX_GAP are only the boundaries that this gap is clamped to.
If it's not smaller than MIN_GAP, MIN_GAP isn't used. If it's not larger
than MAX_GAP, MAX_GAP isn't used. The stack randomization is currently
only taken into account for MIN_GAP. This only fixes that bug by always
taking it into account. It's not a subjective design change.
The MAX_GAP value is 5/6 of the address space which is overly large but
that's a separate bug.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
