Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 17:22:07 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 0/3] exec: Pin stack limit during exec On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM, David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net> wrote: > I have some spare cycles; is there any more relevant information outside of this thread? Awesome, thanks! Context is in the other commits, but mainly I want to double-check that nothing breaks with these changes, and that all the races for changing stack rlimits during exec are fixed. And then, just a sanity-check that the design approach to attaching the stack limit to the bprm isn't crazy. :) -Kees >>>  04e35f4495dd ("exec: avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()") >>>  779f4e1c6c7c ("Revert "exec: avoid RLIMIT_STACK races with prlimit()"") >>>  to security@...nel.org, "Subject: existing rlimit races?" -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.