[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 22:54:00 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "jeyu@...nel.org" <jeyu@...nel.org>, "Hansen, Dave"
<dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>, "keescook@...omium.org"
<keescook@...omium.org>, "arjan@...ux.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kristen@...ux.intel.com" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>, "Dock, Deneen T"
<deneen.t.dock@...el.com>, "catalin.marinas@....com"
<catalin.marinas@....com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "davem@...emloft.net"
<davem@...emloft.net>, "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] arm64/modules: Add rlimit checking for arm64
modules
On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 22:01 +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 16:32 +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> > +++ Dave Hansen [11/10/18 16:47 -0700]:
> > > On 10/11/2018 04:31 PM, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> > > > + if (check_inc_mod_rlimit(size))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > p = __vmalloc_node_range(size, MODULE_ALIGN, module_alloc_base,
> > > > module_alloc_base + MODULES_VSIZE,
> > > > gfp_mask, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, 0,
> > > > @@ -65,6 +68,8 @@ void *module_alloc(unsigned long size)
> > > > return NULL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + update_mod_rlimit(p, size);
> > >
> > > Is there a reason we couldn't just rename all of the existing per-arch
> > > module_alloc() calls to be called, say, "arch_module_alloc()", then put
> > > this new rlimit code in a generic helper that does:
> > >
> > >
> > > if (check_inc_mod_rlimit(size))
> > > return NULL;
> > >
> > > p = arch_module_alloc(...);
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > update_mod_rlimit(p, size);
> > >
> >
> > I second this suggestion. Just make module_{alloc,memfree} generic,
> > non-weak functions that call the rlimit helpers in addition to the
> > arch-specific arch_module_{alloc,memfree} functions.
> >
> > Jessica
>
> Ok, thanks. I am going to try another version of this with just a system wide
> BPF JIT limit based on the problems Jann brought up. I think it would be nice
> to
> have a module space limit, but as far as I know the only way today un-
> privlidged
> users could fill the space is from BPF JIT. Unless you see another purpose
> long
> term?
Err, nevermind. Going to try to include both limits. I'll incorporate this
refactor into the next version.
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.
