Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 14:11:56 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@parisc-linux.org>,
        Helge Diller <deller@gmx.de>, James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        "security@kernel.org" <security@kernel.org>,
        linux-distros@vs.openwall.org,
        Qualys Security Advisory <qsa@qualys.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ximin Luo <infinity0@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: larger stack guard gap, between vmas
Message-ID: <20170704121156.GN14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20170621092419.GA22051@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <1498042057.2655.8.camel@decadent.org.uk>
 <1499126133.2707.20.camel@decadent.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFzMX72+Kb=zNgjCf6UfPt+C+e7WDp_rpbSLuOVx1k7iqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170704084122.GC14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170704093538.GF14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170704094728.GB22013@1wt.eu>
 <20170704104211.GG14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170704113611.GA4732@decadent.org.uk>
 <20170704115959.GM14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170704115959.GM14722@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1880
Lines: 37

On Tue 04-07-17 13:59:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-07-17 12:36:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 12:42 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 04-07-17 11:47:28, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 11:35:38AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > But wouldn't this completely disable the check in case such a guard page
> > > > is installed, and possibly continue to allow the collision when the stack
> > > > allocation is large enough to skip this guard page ?
> > > 
> > > Yes and but a PROT_NONE would fault and as the changelog says, we _hope_
> > > that userspace does the right thing.
> > 
> > It may well not be large enough, because of the same wrong assumptions
> > that resulted in the kernel's guard page not being large enough.  We
> > should count it as part of the guard gap but not a substitute.
> 
> yes, you are right of course. But isn't this a bug on their side
> considering they are managing their _own_ stack gap? Our stack gap
> management is a best effort thing and two such approaches competing will
> always lead to weird cornercases. That was my assumption when saying
> that I am not sure this is really _worth_ it. We should definitely try
> to workaround clashes but that's about it. If others think that we
> should do everything to prevent even those issues I will not oppose
> of course. It just adds more cycles to something that is a weird case
> already.

Forgot to mention another point. Currently we do not check other
previous vmas if prev->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN. Consider that the stack
gap is implemented by mprotect. This wouldn't change the VM_GROWSDOWN
flag and we are back to square 1 because the gap might be too small. Do
we want/need to handle those cases. Are they too different from
MAP_FIXED gaps? I am not so sure but I would be inclined to say no.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs