On 08/24, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> On 08/23/2014 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> The ->start_stack check in do_shmat() looks ugly and simply wrong.
>>
>> 1. ->start_stack is only valid right after exec(), the application
>> can switch to another stack and even unmap this area.
>>
>> 2. The reason for this check is not clear at all. The application
>> should know what it does. And why 4 pages? And why in fact it
>> requires 5 pages?
>>
>> 3. This wrongly assumes that the stack can only grown down.
>>
>> Personally I think we should simply kill this check, but I did not
>> dare to do this. So the patch only fixes the 1st problem (mostly to
>> avoid the usage of mm->start_stack) and ignores VM_GROWSUP.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com>
Thanks!
>> + if (vma) {
>> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)
>> + end += PAGE_SIZE * 4; /* can't overflow */
> Why is an overflow impossible?
OOPS. I swear it was not possible until I simplified this patch ;)
In fact we do not really care because do_mmap_pgoff() will fail, but
this should be fixed anyway. Either we should not check the overflows
at all, or these checks should be consistent.
I'll send v2, thanks Manfred.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
