Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751940Ab0BHGFs (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 01:05:48 -0500 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:37311 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751015Ab0BHGFr (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 01:05:47 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Michael Neuling Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Anton Blanchard , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Alexander Viro , Oleg Nesterov , James Morris , Ingo Molnar , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Serge Hallyn , WANG Cong , Paul Mackerras , benh@kernel.crashing.org, miltonm@bga.com, aeb@cwi.nl In-Reply-To: <9729.1265607469@neuling.org> References: <20100208141716.FB55.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <9729.1265607469@neuling.org> Message-Id: <20100208145240.FB58.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:05:42 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3439 Lines: 105 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Why do we need page size independent stack size? It seems to have > > > > compatibility breaking risk. > > > > > > I don't think so. The current behaviour is clearly wrong, we dont need a > > > 16x larger stack just because you went from a 4kB to a 64kB base page > > > size. The user application stack usage is the same in both cases. > > > > I didn't discuss which behavior is better. Michael said he want to apply > > his patch to 2.6.32 & 2.6.33. stable tree never accept the breaking > > compatibility patch. > > > > Your answer doesn't explain why can't we wait it until next merge window. > > > > btw, personally, I like page size indepent stack size. but I'm not sure > > why making stack size independency is related to bug fix. > > I tend to agree. > > Below is just the bug fix to limit the reservation size based rlimit. > We still reserve different stack sizes based on the page size as > before (unless we hit rlimit of course). Thanks. I agree your patch in almost part. but I have very few requests. > Mikey > > Restrict stack space reservation to rlimit > > When reserving stack space for a new process, make sure we're not > attempting to allocate more than rlimit allows. > > This fixes a bug cause by b6a2fea39318e43fee84fa7b0b90d68bed92d2ba > "mm: variable length argument support" and unmasked by > fc63cf237078c86214abcb2ee9926d8ad289da9b > "exec: setup_arg_pages() fails to return errors". Your initial mail have following problem use-case. please append it into the patch description. On recent ppc64 kernels, limiting the stack (using 'ulimit -s blah') is now more restrictive than it was before. On 2.6.31 with 4k pages I could run 'ulimit -s 16; /usr/bin/test' without a problem. Now with mainline, even 'ulimit -s 64; /usr/bin/test' gets killed. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling > Cc: Anton Blanchard > Cc: stable@kernel.org > --- > fs/exec.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/fs/exec.c > +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/fs/exec.c > @@ -627,10 +627,13 @@ int setup_arg_pages(struct linux_binprm > goto out_unlock; > } > > + stack_base = min(EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE, > + current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_STACK].rlim_cur - > + PAGE_SIZE); This line is a bit unclear why "- PAGE_SIZE" is necessary. personally, I like following likes explicit comments. stack_expand = EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE; stack_lim = ACCESS_ONCE(rlim[RLIMIT_STACK].rlim_cur); /* Initial stack must not cause stack overflow. */ if (stack_expand + PAGE_SIZE > stack_lim) stack_expand = stack_lim - PAGE_SIZE; note: accessing rlim_cur require ACCESS_ONCE. Thought? > #ifdef CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP > - stack_base = vma->vm_end + EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE; > + stack_base = vma->vm_end + stack_base; > #else > - stack_base = vma->vm_start - EXTRA_STACK_VM_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE; > + stack_base = vma->vm_start - stack_base; > #endif > ret = expand_stack(vma, stack_base); > if (ret) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/