On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:30:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 09:21:06PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:30:02PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > I'm clearly not explaining things well enough. I shouldn't say > > > "corruption", I should say "malicious manipulation". The methodology > > > of attacks against the stack are quite different from the other kinds > > > of attacks like use-after-free, heap overflow, etc. Being able to > > > exhaust the kernel stack (either due to deep recursion or unbounded > > > alloca()) > > > > I really hope we don't have alloca() use in the kernel. Do you have > > evidence to support that assertion? > > > > IMHO alloca() (or similar) should not be present in any kernel code > > because we have a limited stack - we have kmalloc() etc for that kind > > of thing. > > On stack variable length arrays get implemented by the compiler doing > alloca(), and we sadly have a few of those around. I hope their size is appropriately limited, but something tells me it would be foolish to assume that. > But yes, fully agreed on the desirability of alloca() and things. Hmm, I wonder if -fno-builtin-alloca would prevent those... it looks like it certainly would prevent an explicit alloca() call. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
