On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 AM, <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
>
> When RLIMIT_STACK is, for example, 256MB, the current code results in
> a gap between the top of the task and mmap_base of 256MB, failing to
> take into account the amount by which the stack address was randomized.
> In other words, the stack gets less than RLIMIT_STACK space.
Is this entirely accurate? The top of the task would be task_size, but
this code is using task_size / 6 * 5 as the bottom of stack / top of
mmap gap_max. Is there a reason for this?
>
> Ensure that the gap between the stack and mmap_base always takes stack
> randomization into account.
>
> From Daniel Micay's linux-hardened tree.
>
> Reported-by: Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Micay <danielmi...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/mmap.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c b/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> index 19ad095b41df..8c7ba1adb27b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -95,13 +95,18 @@ unsigned long arch_mmap_rnd(void)
> static unsigned long mmap_base(unsigned long rnd, unsigned long task_size)
> {
> unsigned long gap = rlimit(RLIMIT_STACK);
> + unsigned long pad = stack_maxrandom_size(task_size);
> unsigned long gap_min, gap_max;
>
> + /* Values close to RLIM_INFINITY can overflow. */
> + if (gap + pad > gap)
> + gap += pad;
> +
> /*
> * Top of mmap area (just below the process stack).
> * Leave an at least ~128 MB hole with possible stack randomization.
> */
> - gap_min = SIZE_128M + stack_maxrandom_size(task_size);
> + gap_min = SIZE_128M;
> gap_max = (task_size / 6) * 5;
>
> if (gap < gap_min)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
