Re: [PATCH v2] ipc/shm: fix the historical/wrong mm->start_stack check
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Aug 26 2014 - 10:35:25 EST
On 08/25, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > As Hugh pointed out, we actually need to require the additional
> > guard page, but this code was written before linux had it.
> > 3. This wrongly assumes that the stack can only grown down.
> > Personally I think we should simply kill this check, but I did not
> > dare to do this. So the patch only fixes the 1st problem (mostly to
> > avoid the usage of mm->start_stack) and ignores the VM_GROWSUP case.
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sorry, I cannot ack this,
Hugh, I appreciate you nack even more. Thanks!
> because your comment below "at least 4 pages
> plus a guard page enforced by check_stack_guard_page()" makes no sense
> to me as an explanation for the 5. The guard page (gap) enforced by
> check_stack_guard_page() is already at vma->vm_start
Ahh. Yes I misunderstood this logic. And yes, you tried to explain it
twice but I was too stupid.
> I did come across 2.6.34's 128k stack_expand inherited from 2.6.11's
> 20 page EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES. With Linus's guard page enforcing a
> page gap since 2.6.36.
OK, and setup_arg_pages() still does expand_stack() although stack_expand
depends on RLIMIT_STACK. But I think this doesn't matter. The room was
already reserved, in general mm->start_stack points into the middle of
So that check in do_shmat() can only help if the stack was not expanded
due to the low RLIMIT_STACK, then this application raises RLIMIT_STACK,
then does do_shmat(). But in this case it should likely crash when exec
returns to usermode.
> and our difficulty
> in communicating a sensible way of updating and describing the test,
I like your polite interpretation of my ignorance and inability to listen ;)
> now drives me to agree with you. Please just rip out the start_stack
> test and the comment defending it.
Great. Will do.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/