On Wed 14-11-18 16:54:14, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/13, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:55:58 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <o...@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.
I would rather not over-engineer this after a first bug. Even 256 path seems like a torturing to me ;) We would have to have some limit anyway and arbitrary value might just not work for somebody crazy enough. Making it a part of of rlimit sounds like opening a cane of worms to me. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
