Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 16:54:14 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ben Woodard <woodard@redhat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: increase BINPRM_BUF_SIZE to 256
Message-ID: <20181114155413.GC13885@redhat.com>
References: <20181112160931.GA28463@redhat.com>
 <20181112160956.GA28472@redhat.com>
 <20181112155248.4dde2613979f4c176565629e@linux-foundation.org>
 <20181113165557.GG30990@redhat.com>
 <20181113124305.73b8ac9e5a2ef9b18d3444b2@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181113124305.73b8ac9e5a2ef9b18d3444b2@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/13, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:55:58 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > However it would be basically cost-free to increase
> > > BINPRM_BUF_SIZE up to the point where sizeof(struct linux_binprm) ==
> > > PAGE_SIZE?
> >
> > I don't think we should take sizeof(struct linux_binprm) into account, the
> > new members can come at any time and we can never decrease BINPRM_BUF_SIZE.
>
> My main point is..  why not make BINPRM_BUF_SIZE a lot larger than 256?

Of course we can make it larger. And of course 256 is just another silly/random
value. Currently it seems to work, but if we have another bug report we should
probably rework load_script() to use vmalloc()'ed buffer. Perhaps we should do
this right now and I am just too lazy.

Oleg.