[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180208202100.GB3424@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:21:00 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Warn the user when they could overflow mapcount
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:48:52PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> I guess it could saturate and then switch to tracking the count via an
> object pointer -> count mapping with a global lock? Whatever the
> solution is should probably be a generic one since it's a recurring
> issue.
I was thinking of saturating _mapcount at 2 billion (allowing _refcount
the extra space to go into the 2-3 billion range). Once saturated,
disallow all attempts at mapping it until _mapcount has gone below 2
billion again. We can walk the page->mapping->i_mmap tree and find
tasks with more than, say, 10 mappings each, and kill them.
Now that I think about it, though, perhaps the simplest solution is not
to worry about checking whether _mapcount has saturated, and instead when
adding a new mmap, check whether this task already has it mapped 10 times.
If so, refuse the mapping.
Now we can argue that since pid_max is smaller than 400 million that
_mapcount will never overflow, and so we don't need to check it.
Convincing argument?
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.
