Re: [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <hidden>
Date: 2010-02-08 06:05:42
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
quoted
quoted
Hi,quoted
Why do we need page size independent stack size? It seems to have compatibility breaking risk.I don't think so. The current behaviour is clearly wrong, we dont need a 16x larger stack just because you went from a 4kB to a 64kB base page size. The user application stack usage is the same in both cases.I didn't discuss which behavior is better. Michael said he want to apply his patch to 2.6.32 & 2.6.33. stable tree never accept the breaking compatibility patch. Your answer doesn't explain why can't we wait it until next merge window. btw, personally, I like page size indepent stack size. but I'm not sure why making stack size independency is related to bug fix.I tend to agree. Below is just the bug fix to limit the reservation size based rlimit. We still reserve different stack sizes based on the page size as before (unless we hit rlimit of course).
Thanks. I agree your patch in almost part. but I have very few requests.
Mikey Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not attempting to allocate more than rlimit allows. This fixes a bug cause by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba "mm: variable length argument support" and unmasked by fc63cf237078c86214abcb2ee9926d8ad289da9b "exec: setup_arg_pages() fails to return errors".
Your initial mail have following problem use-case. please append it into the patch description. On recent ppc64 kernels, limiting the stack (using 'ulimit -s blah') is now more restrictive than it was before. On 2.6.31 with 4k pages I could run 'ulimit -s 16; /usr/bin/test' without a problem. Now with mainline, even 'ulimit -s 64; /usr/bin/test' gets killed.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <redacted> Cc: Anton Blanchard <redacted> Cc: stable@kernel.org --- fs/exec.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c ===================================================================--- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/fs/exec.c +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c@@ -627,10 +627,13 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm goto out_unlock; } + stack_base = min(EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE, + current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_STACK].rlim_cur - + PAGE_SIZE);
This line is a bit unclear why "- PAGE_SIZE" is necessary. personally, I like following likes explicit comments. stack_expand = EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE; stack_lim = ACCESS_ONCE(rlim[RLIMIT_STACK].rlim_cur); /* Initial stack must not cause stack overflow. */ if (stack_expand + PAGE_SIZE > stack_lim) stack_expand = stack_lim - PAGE_SIZE; note: accessing rlim_cur require ACCESS_ONCE. Thought?
#ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP - stack_base = vma->vm_end + EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE; + stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_base; #else - stack_base = vma->vm_start - EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE; + stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_base; #endif ret = expand_stack(vma, stack_base); if (ret)