From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932596AbcCKQTx (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:19:53 -0500 Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]:33459 "EHLO mail-ig0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932153AbcCKQTv (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:19:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160311085301.GB29750@gmail.com> References: <1457639460-5242-1-git-send-email-hecmargi@upv.es> <56E1DEE6.5040306@linux.intel.com> <20160311085301.GB29750@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:19:49 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: N8w9bp8xXrOhjvhmgS4QqK78rrU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Enable full randomization on i386 and X86_32. From: Kees Cook To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , Hector Marco-Gisbert , LKML , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , Ismael Ripoll Ripoll , Harvey Harrison Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Arjan van de Ven >> wrote: >> >> Arjan, or other folks, can you remember why x86_32 disabled mmap >> >> randomization here? There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it that >> >> I see. >> > >> > >> > for unlimited stack it got really messy with threaded apps. >> >> Seems like it'd only cause problems for really really giant processes? >> (I think it's telling that the other 32-bit archs don't disable ASLR >> in this case...) > > IIRC there was some sort of specific breakage with unlimited stack apps - I don't > remember the exact details. > >> > anyway, I don't mind seeing if this will indeed work, with time running out >> > where 32 bit is going extinct... in a few years we just won't have enough >> > testing on this kind of change anymore. >> >> Sounds good. Ingo, can you pull this in and we can try it for -next? > > Ok, we can certainly try. If there's breakage with old distros then we might need > to put this behind a legacy Kconfig switch. Okay, sounds good. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security