[RFC] nptl: change default stack guard size of threads
Florian Weimer
fweimer@redhat.com
Wed Dec 6 13:51:00 GMT 2017
On 12/06/2017 02:40 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Based on the ld.so experience, I think it is questionable that existing
>> vulnerable applications can be fixed by increasing the guard size. Our
>> expectation is that we have to recompile with -fstack-clash-protection to get
>> deterministic crashes (which we are doing with glibc), or to patch them to
>> avoid the stack jump (which we did for ld.so because the GCC support wasn't
>> available at the time).
>
> I'd say we should continue to fix any cases of unbounded dynamic stack
> allocations in glibc, as being bugs (whether or not bugs with security
> impact), *and* expect to need to compile glibc and everything else with
> -fstack-clash-protection for safety (there are, after all, some quite
> large but bounded static stack allocations in glibc).
Yes, I was too brief. Any reachable large stack jump still needs to be
fixed. But it's very hard to identify those that matter. Aldy and I
actually looked at the llp_tmp jump long before the security impact was
known, but I dismissed, probably because I wrongly assumed that
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is ignored in AT_SECURE=1 binaries.
So -fstack-clash-protection is needed for the deterministic crashes, as
a safety net, but it of course doesn't fix any actual bugs.
Thanks,
Florian
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list