Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote:

> Sebastien Marie wrote:
> > Assuming the check on protection is a bit too restrictive, and it is
> > fine to have some chunks with PROT_NONE, I think we want something like:
> 
> are readonly stacks meaningful? if so, we should fix that too now instead of
> waiting. 

Other systems lack allocators that opportunistically place guard pages
off the edge of mmap/malloc allocations.

That as led some programs to install their own guard-page to catch
small-range stack overflows (useless for large-range reach, as the
public learned a couple months ago).

The full range gets passed to sigaltstack, which freaks out due to a
recently added check included in the MAP_STACK work.  That check isn't
needed since prot checks still get evaluated seperately by uvm_fault

and sigaltstack should always succeed.

So stefan is deleting the check.

What occurs without this check?  The sigaltstack MAP_STACK-overtake will
override the in-region guard-page, turning it into PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE
w/ MAP_STACK.  I have a seperate discussion with stefan about how to
avoid PROT_* mangling that one page inside uvm_map_remap_as_stack(),
basically if the overflow-end of stack is properly aligned, ignore 1
full page in case it is a guard.  Don't make it MAP_STACK, and don't
change it's permissions.

MAP_STACK can therefore act as an opportunistic overflow detector, and
an applications own PROT_NONE guard can act so otherwise.

Reply via email to