[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] exec argument expansion can inappropriately trigger OOM-killer
    On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:06:16AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
    > And I say, if your userland process could really allocate another 200GB,
    > then more power to you, you can do it with an exec too. If you could do
    > the same with a userland stack allocation, and spend all that time in
    > strlen calls and then memcpy, you can do it inside execve too. If it
    > takes days, that's what you asked for, and it's your process. It just
    > ought to be every bit (or near enough) as preemptible and interruptible
    > as that normal userland activity ought to be.

    This makes sense to me. However, introducing a new preemption point
    may violate assumptions under which the code was written and reviewed
    in the past. In the worst case, we'd introduce/expose race conditions
    allowing for privilege escalation.

    > So, perhaps we want this (count already has a cond_resched in its loop):

    Good point re: count() already having this (I think it did not in 2.2).

    > @@ -400,6 +403,10 @@ static int copy_strings(int argc, const
    > int len;
    > unsigned long pos;
    > + if (signal_pending(current))
    > + return -ERESTARTNOINTR;
    > + cond_resched();

    So, in current kernels, you're making it possible for more kinds of
    things to change after prepare_binprm() but before
    search_binary_handler(). We'd need to check for possible implications
    of this.

    I must admit I am not familiar with what additional kinds of things may
    change when execution is preempted. This made a significant difference
    in some much older kernels (many years ago), but now that the kernel
    makes a lot less use of locking most things may be changed by another
    CPU even without preemption. So does anyone have a list of what
    additional risks we're exposed to, if any, when we allow preemption in
    current kernels?

    > Has someone reported this BUG_ON failure mode with a reproducer?

    64bit_dos.c was supposed to be the reproducer, and I managed to get it
    to work (as I've documented in another message earlier today). The
    prerequisites appeared to be (some of these might be specific to my
    tests, though):

    - 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userland support (e.g., CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION);
    - 64-bit build of 64bit_dos.c;
    - 32-bit build of the target program;
    - no dynamic linking in the target program;
    - "ulimit -s unlimited" before running the reproducer program;
    - over 3 GB of RAM in the system.

    > [...] Rather than better enabling OOM killing, I think what really
    > makes sense is for the nascent mm to be marked such that allocations in
    > it (they'll be from get_arg_page->get_user_pages->handle_mm_fault) just
    > fail with ENOMEM before it resorts to the OOM killer (or perhaps even to
    > very aggressive pageout). That should percolate back to the execve just
    > failing with ENOMEM, which is nicer than OOM kill even if the OOM killer
    > actually does pick exactly and only the right target.

    I agree.



     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-30 21:51    [W:0.028 / U:78.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site