From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/667 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runit running under linux 2.4 with openwall patches Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:28:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1106260116 4617 80.91.229.6 (20 Jan 2005 22:28:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-906-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Thu Jan 20 23:28:25 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Crkmu-0004cg-00 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:28:24 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 18907 invoked by uid 76); 20 Jan 2005 22:28:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 18901 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2005 22:28:45 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com Original-To: Vincent Danen In-Reply-To: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:667 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:667 On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Vincent Danen wrote: > One of the features of openwall is stack protection. I'm getting this > when I try to boot into a 2.4.29 kernel with openwall hardening > enabled: > > Security: return onto stack from 0x0804812c to 0xbffffea0 running as > UID 0, EUID 0, process runit:1 > Security more returns onto stack, logging disabled for a minute > > I can manage to make the kernel boot, but runit isn't running and it's > consuming 100% cpu in my vmware test machine. > > I have two ideas that may be causing the problem, and not being a > kernel person I don't really know for 100% which it is: > > 1) the Non-executable user stack area part of owl > 2) the enforce RLIMIT_NPROC on execve(2) > > I have a feeling that it's #1 tho. Why do you have that feeling? What gives you these two ideas? Do you see any actions from runit before the "return onto stack" message? You might run "strace runit-init" in place of "runit", although I'm not sure what chaos that might cause.