public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] apparently broken RLIMIT_CORE
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:33:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131006213358.GZ13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFy8TAeeTA0YVRs8w=MjUC0idvNqB+9BcLWVLPw_LEQajg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:42:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >         In other words, the size of notes section is ignored for
> > RLIMIT_CORE purposes.  Is that intentional?
> 
> I doubt it is intentional, but I also cannot really feel that we care
> deeply. Afaik we don't really honor the size limit exactly anyway, ie
> we tend to check only at page boundaries etc. So do we really care?

It's actually easier to put the counter of already written data into
coredump_params and have a new primitive both check that we won't
exceed the limit and update that counter, rather than doing it manually
(and somewhat inconsistently) in load_elf_binary() and the stuff it
calls.  As the matter of fact, after that change we get code looking
so:
        if (!elf_core_write_extra_phdrs(cprm, offset))
                goto end_coredump;

        size = cprm->written;
        /* write out the notes section */
        if (!write_note_info(&info, cprm))
                goto end_coredump;

        if (elf_coredump_extra_notes_write(cprm))
                goto end_coredump;

        /* Align to page */   
        if (!dump_seek(cprm->file, dataoff - cprm->written))
                goto end_coredump;

        cprm->written = size;
        for (vma = first_vma(current, gate_vma); vma != NULL;
                        vma = next_vma(vma, gate_vma)) {
and that's the only remaining reason to have size as local variable at all.
IOW, making the it consistent would mean getting rid of this "save and restore
cprm->written" thing around write_note_info()/elf_coredump_extra_notes_write()
in there...

Objections?

PS: I've ended up modifying aout32 coredump code (after fixing the bitrot in
there), now the problem is how to test it.  I'm grabbing something I hadn't
seen in a _long_ time - i386 Slackware 2.3; that should still contain live
a.out toolchain and as long as it's run under KVM and isolated from network...

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-06 21:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-06  0:43 [RFC] apparently broken RLIMIT_CORE Al Viro
2013-10-06 20:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-10-06 21:07   ` Ulrich Drepper
2013-10-06 21:33   ` Al Viro [this message]
2013-10-06 22:04     ` Linus Torvalds

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=20131006213358.GZ13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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