linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] Introduce mseal

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:18:33 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	keescook@...omium.org, jannh@...gle.com, sroettger@...gle.com,
	willy@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	usama.anjum@...labora.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, jeffxu@...gle.com,
	jorgelo@...omium.org, groeck@...omium.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, pedro.falcato@...il.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] Introduce mseal

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 07:24:02PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 5:06 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:24:40PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > As an outsider, Linux development is really strange:
> > >
> > > Two sub-features are being pushed very hard, and the primary developer
> > > doesn't have code which uses either of them.  And once it goes in, it
> > > cannot be changed.
> > >
> > > It's very different from my world, where the absolutely minimal
> > > interface was written to apply to a whole operating system plus 10,000+
> > > applications, and then took months of testing before it was approved for
> > > inclusion.  And if it was subtly wrong, we would be able to change it.
> >
> > No, it's this "feature" submission that is strange to think that we
> > don't need that.  We do need, and will require, an actual working
> > userspace something to use it, otherwise as you say, there's no way to
> > actually know if it works properly or not and we can't change it once we
> > accept it.
> >
> > So along those lines, Jeff, do you have a pointer to the Chrome patches,
> > or glibc patches, that use this new interface that proves that it
> > actually works?  Those would be great to see to at least verify it's
> > been tested in a real-world situation and actually works for your use
> > case.
> >
> The MAP_SEALABLE is raised because of other concerns not related to libc.
> 
> The patch Stephan developed was based on V1 of the patch, IIRC, which
> is really ancient, and it is not based on MAP_SEALABLE, which is a
> more recent development entirely from me.
> 
> I don't see unresolvable problems  with glibc though,  E.g. For the
> elf case (binfmt_elf.c), there are two places I need to add
> MAP_SEALABLE, then the memory  to user space is marked with sealable.
> There might be cases where glibc needs to add MAP_SEALABLE it uses
> mmap(FIXED) to split the memory.
> 
> If the decision of MAP_SELABLE depends on the glibc case being able to
> use it, we can develop such a patch, but it will take a while, say a
> few weeks to months, due to vacation, work load, etc.

There's no rush here, and no deadlines in kernel development.  If you
don't have a working userspace user for your new feature(s), there is no
way we can accept the changes to the kernel (and hint, you don't want us
to either...)

good luck!

greg k-h