From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: stable@kernel.org, aeb@cwi.nl, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
miltonm@bga.com, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:59:27 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11046.1265705967@neuling.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100209154141.03F0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
In message <20100209154141.03F0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> you wrote:
> > When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not
> > attempting to expand the stack by more than rlimit allows.
> >
> > This fixes a bug caused by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba "mm:
> > variable length argument support" and unmasked by
> > fc63cf237078c86214abcb2ee9926d8ad289da9b "exec: setup_arg_pages() fails
> > to return errors". This bug means when limiting the stack to less the
> > 20*PAGE_SIZE (eg. 80K on 4K pages or 'ulimit -s 79') all processes will
> > be killed before they start. This is particularly bad with 64K pages,
> > where a ulimit below 1280K will kill every process.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> > Cc: stable@kernel.org
> > ---
> > Attempts to answer comments from Kosaki Motohiro.
> >
> > Tested on PPC only, hence !CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP. Someone should
> > probably ACK for an arch with CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP.
> >
> > As noted, stable needs the same patch, but 2.6.32 doesn't have the
> > rlimit() helper.
> >
> > fs/exec.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/fs/exec.c
> > +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c
> > @@ -555,6 +555,7 @@ static int shift_arg_pages(struct vm_are
> > }
> >
> > #define EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES 20 /* random */
> > +#define ALIGN_DOWN(addr,size) ((addr)&(~((size)-1)))
> >
> > /*
> > * Finalizes the stack vm_area_struct. The flags and permissions are updat
ed,
> > @@ -570,7 +571,7 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm
> > struct vm_area_struct *vma = bprm->vma;
> > struct vm_area_struct *prev = NULL;
> > unsigned long vm_flags;
> > - unsigned long stack_base;
> > + unsigned long stack_base, stack_expand, stack_expand_lim, stack_size;
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> > /* Limit stack size to 1GB */
> > @@ -627,10 +628,24 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm
> > goto out_unlock;
> > }
> >
> > + stack_expand = EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE;
> > + stack_size = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
> > + if (rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) < stack_size)
> > + stack_expand_lim = 0; /* don't shrick the stack */
> > + else
> > + /*
> > + * Align this down to a page boundary as expand_stack
> > + * will align it up.
> > + */
> > + stack_expand_lim = ALIGN_DOWN(rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) - stack_size
,
> > + PAGE_SIZE);
> > + /* Initial stack must not cause stack overflow. */
> > + if (stack_expand > stack_expand_lim)
> > + stack_expand = stack_expand_lim;
> > #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> > - stack_base = vma->vm_end + EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE;
> > + stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_expand;
> > #else
> > - stack_base = vma->vm_start - EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE;
> > + stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_expand;
> > #endif
> > ret = expand_stack(vma, stack_base);
> > if (ret)
>
> Umm.. It looks correct. but the nested complex if statement seems a bit ugly.
> Instead, How about following?
I don't like the duplicated code in the #ifdef/else but I can live with it.
> note: it's untested.
Works for me on ppc64 with 4k and 64k pages. Thanks!
I'd still like someone with a CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP arch to test/ACK it
as well.
Mikey
>
>
>
> ===============
> From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> Subject: Restrict initial stack space expansion to rlimit
>
> When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not
> attempting to expand the stack by more than rlimit allows.
>
> This fixes a bug caused by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba "mm:
> variable length argument support" and unmasked by
> fc63cf237078c86214abcb2ee9926d8ad289da9b "exec: setup_arg_pages() fails
> to return errors". This bug means when limiting the stack to less the
> 20*PAGE_SIZE (eg. 80K on 4K pages or 'ulimit -s 79') all processes will
> be killed before they start. This is particularly bad with 64K pages,
> where a ulimit below 1280K will kill every process.
>
> [kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com: cleanups]
> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> ---
> Attempts to answer comments from Kosaki Motohiro.
>
> Tested on PPC only, hence !CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP. Someone should
> probably ACK for an arch with CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP.
>
> As noted, stable needs the same patch, but 2.6.32 doesn't have the
> rlimit() helper.
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 6f7fb0c..325bad4 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -573,6 +573,9 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> struct vm_area_struct *prev = NULL;
> unsigned long vm_flags;
> unsigned long stack_base;
> + unsigned long stack_size;
> + unsigned long stack_expand;
> + unsigned long rlim_stack;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> /* Limit stack size to 1GB */
> @@ -629,10 +632,27 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm *bprm,
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> + stack_expand = EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE;
> + stack_size = vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
> + /*
> + * Align this down to a page boundary as expand_stack
> + * will align it up.
> + */
> + rlim_stack = rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK) & PAGE_MASK;
> + if (rlim_stack < stack_size)
> + rlim_stack = stack_size;
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP
> - stack_base = vma->vm_end + EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE;
> + if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack) {
> + stack_base = vma->vm_start + rlim_stack;
> + } else {
> + stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_expand;
> + }
> #else
> - stack_base = vma->vm_start - EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE;
> + if (stack_size + stack_expand > rlim_stack) {
> + stack_base = vma->vm_end - rlim_stack;
> + } else {
> + stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_expand;
> + }
> #endif
> ret = expand_stack(vma, stack_base);
> if (ret)
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-09 8:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-06 0:43 Stack size protection broken on ppc64 Michael Neuling
2010-02-06 4:20 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-02-06 10:22 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-08 0:04 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-02-08 0:07 ` [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit Michael Neuling
2010-02-08 0:28 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-08 5:06 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-08 5:11 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-02-08 5:22 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-08 5:31 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-02-08 6:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-08 5:37 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-08 6:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-08 7:07 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-08 7:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-09 6:11 ` [PATCH] Restrict initial stack space expansion " Michael Neuling
2010-02-09 6:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-09 8:59 ` Michael Neuling [this message]
2010-02-09 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-09 21:51 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-09 22:27 ` Helge Deller
2010-02-10 5:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-02-10 5:30 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-10 5:31 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-11 22:16 ` Helge Deller
2010-02-11 22:22 ` Michael Neuling
2010-02-08 10:45 ` [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation " Michael Neuling
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=11046.1265705967@neuling.org \
--to=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=aeb@cwi.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=miltonm@bga.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/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: link
Be 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).