Re: [PATCH] mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas

Ben Hutchings
2017-07-05T19:33:24Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1756 bytes --]

On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 10:23 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[...]
> Looking at it that way, I think a new inherited-on-exec flag is nucking futs.
>
> I'm starting to think that the right approach is to mostly revert all
> this stuff (the execve fixes are fine).  Then start over and think
> about it as hardening.  I would suggest the following approach:
>
>  - The stack gap is one page, just like it's been for years.

Given that in the following points you say that something sounding like
a stack gap would be "64k or whatever", what does "the stack gap" mean
in this first point?

>  - As a hardening feature, if the stack would expand within 64k or
> whatever of a non-MAP_FIXED mapping, refuse to expand it.  (This might
> have to be a non-hinted mapping, not just a non-MAP_FIXED mapping.)
> The idea being that, if you deliberately place a mapping under the
> stack, you know what you're doing.  If you're like LibreOffice and do
> something daft and are thus exploitable, you're on your own.
>  - As a hardening measure, don't let mmap without MAP_FIXED position
> something within 64k or whatever of the bottom of the stack unless a
> MAP_FIXED mapping is between them.

Having tested patches along these lines, I think the above would avoid
the reported regressions.

Ben.

> And that's all.  It's not like a 64k gap actually fixes these bugs for
> real -- it just makes them harder to exploit.
>
> [1] The code that GCC generates for char buf[bug number] and alloca()
> is flat-out wrong.  Everyone who's ever thought about it all all knows
> it and has known about it for years, but no one cared to fix it.
--
Ben Hutchings
Anthony's Law of Force: Don't force it, get a larger hammer.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]