On 11/13, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:55:58 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > However it would be basically cost-free to increase > > > BINPRM_BUF_SIZE up to the point where sizeof(struct linux_binprm) == > > > PAGE_SIZE? > > > > I don't think we should take sizeof(struct linux_binprm) into account, the > > new members can come at any time and we can never decrease BINPRM_BUF_SIZE. > > My main point is.. why not make BINPRM_BUF_SIZE a lot larger than 256?
Of course we can make it larger. And of course 256 is just another silly/random value. Currently it seems to work, but if we have another bug report we should probably rework load_script() to use vmalloc()'ed buffer. Perhaps we should do this right now and I am just too lazy. Oleg.
