[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: mmap_min_addr/SECURITY_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR suggested values
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:53:37 +0100
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <> wrote:

> Hi,
> The config help for SECURITY_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR suggests 65536
> as a 'reasonable' value for x86 and the original mmap_min_addr
> patches suggested that 'something like 64k' was a safe value that
> wouldn't affect most programs.
> Where does this 64k value come from? A number of distros seem
> to have followed this advice and have it set to 64k; but is there
> really any likely benefit of having it larger than PAGE_SIZE say?

there's a few things in the kernel that are bigger than 4K (or rather,
lead to pointers beyond 4K) so it's not all that bad advice.

> I ask because I have an ancient program that maps stuff at 8k; the
> general advice of stuff on the net seems to be to set this limit
> to 0 if people have problems (I'm just lowering it to 4k),
> but I was thinking perhaps using a lower default value would be more
> secure since less people would take the easy answer and just turn the
> feature off altogether.

interesting... what does the program do?
(applications making assumptions on where they can mmap stuff... that's
not really valid. Realistically, the only safe way to use MAP_FIXED is
on memory that you got from mmap before.. think about it: what if
glibc happened to mmap something there first?)

So I'm quite curious what/why this app is doing this

If you want to reach me at my work email, use
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-23 16:07    [W:0.141 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site