On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:17:19PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:28:47AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:54:30PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > Any reasonably maximum that should be assumed here? IOW, what happens if
> > userspace starts specifying 4G shadow_stack_size with each clone3() call
> > for lolz?
>
> I guess we could impose RLIMIT_STACK?
Yeah, that also seems to be what acct_stack_growth() is using.
>
> > > + } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * For CLONE_VFORK the child will share the parents
> > > + * shadow stack. Make sure to clear the internal
> > > + * tracking of the thread shadow stack so the freeing
> > > + * logic run for child knows to leave it alone.
> > > + */
> > > + if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
> > > + shstk->base = 0;
> > > + shstk->size = 0;
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
>
> > Why is the CLONE_VFORK handling only necessary if shadow_stack_size is
> > unset? In general, a comment or explanation on the interaction between
> > CLONE_VFORK and shadow_stack_size would be helpful.
>
> This is the existing implicit behaviour that clone() has, it's current
> ABI for x86. The intent is that if the user has explicitly configured a
> shadow stack then we just do whatever they asked us to do, if they
So what I'm asking is: if the calling process is suspended until the
child exits or exec's does it make sense for the child to even get a
shadow stack? I don't know the answer which is why I'm asking.
