From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Subject: [RESEND][PATCH 0/3] exec: Pin stack limit during exec Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:33 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1518638796-20819-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> (raw) Attempts to solve problems with the stack limit changing during exec continue to be frustrated[1][2]. In addition to the specific issues around the Stack Clash family of flaws, Andy Lutomirski pointed out[3] other places during exec where the stack limit is used and is assumed to be unchanging. Given the many places it gets used and the fact that it can be manipulated/raced via setrlimit() and prlimit(), I think the only way to handle this is to move away from the "current" view of the stack limit and instead attach it to the bprm, and plumb this down into the functions that need to know the stack limits. This series implements the approach. Neither I nor 0-day have found issues with this series, so I'd like to get it into -mm for further testing. Thanks! -Kees [1] 04e35f4495dd ("exec: avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()") [2] 779f4e1c6c7c ("Revert "exec: avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()"") [3] to security@kernel.org, "Subject: existing rlimit races?" -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Subject: [RESEND][PATCH 0/3] exec: Pin stack limit during exec Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:06:33 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1518638796-20819-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> (raw) Message-ID: <20180214200633.HTA1zYMZqch8EGX-SfMUdSfYWhS9Nwdb6V4jOsTmu1U@z> (raw) Attempts to solve problems with the stack limit changing during exec continue to be frustrated[1][2]. In addition to the specific issues around the Stack Clash family of flaws, Andy Lutomirski pointed out[3] other places during exec where the stack limit is used and is assumed to be unchanging. Given the many places it gets used and the fact that it can be manipulated/raced via setrlimit() and prlimit(), I think the only way to handle this is to move away from the "current" view of the stack limit and instead attach it to the bprm, and plumb this down into the functions that need to know the stack limits. This series implements the approach. Neither I nor 0-day have found issues with this series, so I'd like to get it into -mm for further testing. Thanks! -Kees [1] 04e35f4495dd ("exec: avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()") [2] 779f4e1c6c7c ("Revert "exec: avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()"") [3] to security@kernel.org, "Subject: existing rlimit races?"
next reply other threads:[~2018-02-14 20:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-02-14 20:06 Kees Cook [this message] 2018-02-14 20:06 ` [RESEND][PATCH 0/3] exec: Pin stack limit during exec Kees Cook 2018-02-14 20:06 ` [PATCH 1/3] exec: Pass stack rlimit into mm layout functions Kees Cook 2018-02-14 20:06 ` Kees Cook 2018-02-14 20:06 ` [PATCH 2/3] exec: Introduce finalize_exec() before start_thread() Kees Cook 2018-02-14 20:06 ` [PATCH 3/3] exec: Pin stack limit during exec Kees Cook 2018-02-14 20:06 ` Kees Cook 2018-02-20 13:46 ` [RESEND][PATCH 0/3] " Michal Hocko 2018-02-20 13:46 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1518638796-20819-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org \ --to=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \ --cc=greg@kroah.com \ --cc=hughd@google.com \ --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \ --cc=labbott@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=luto@kernel.org \ --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=oleg@redhat.com \ --cc=riel@redhat.com \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=w@1wt.eu \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).