> I still don't think this addresses the whole problem. Without question, > the rlimit / 4 check is bogus. If nobody agrees with the intent of that > check, then it should be removed, but I think the better solution is to > fix the check so that it matches its original intent: let the initial > stack setup be up to 1/Xth of the min(rlimit, TASK_SIZE dependent upon > personality), which allows space for additional stack setup in the ELF > loader and then further growth once the process is live. If that > amount is overstepped, then the exec will return an error to the calling > process instead of being terminated. > > It might be useful to consult with the people who introduced/approved > the check in the first place, as they seemed to have reasons for > implementing it. Brad, sorry, I have bad news. glibc sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) is implemented by hard coded RLIMIT_STACK/4 heuristics. That said, at least _now_, we can't change this even though you disliked. That said, we can't break userland even though userland library is very crazy. I don't dislike your "1/Xth of the min(rlimit, TASK_SIZE dependent upon > personality)" idea. however I think You and Roland haven't agreed this point yet. he seems to want "unlimited" works as "unlimited". then, now I don't make such patch. Instead, I would propose to insert __vm_enough_memory() check in execve() pass. It prevent almost argv attack. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
