linux-hardening - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] Introduce mseal() syscall

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjS=xg12RVQdTNxEurjo21eXQBQO0D5My6Aox4LCfsO1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:38:19 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...nbsd.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>, jeffxu@...omium.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	keescook@...omium.org, sroettger@...gle.com, jorgelo@...omium.org, 
	groeck@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jannh@...gle.com, 
	surenb@...gle.com, alex.sierra@....com, apopple@...dia.com, 
	aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, ben@...adent.org.uk, 
	catalin.marinas@....com, david@...hat.com, dwmw@...zon.co.uk, 
	ying.huang@...el.com, hughd@...gle.com, joey.gouly@....com, corbet@....net, 
	wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, lstoakes@...il.com, 
	willy@...radead.org, mawupeng1@...wei.com, linmiaohe@...wei.com, 
	namit@...are.com, peterx@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, 
	ryan.roberts@....com, shr@...kernel.io, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	xiujianfeng@...wei.com, yu.ma@...el.com, zhangpeng362@...wei.com, 
	dave.hansen@...el.com, luto@...nel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] Introduce mseal() syscall

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 11:20, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...nbsd.org> wrote:
>
> The only case where the immutable marker is ignored is during address space
> teardown as a result of process termination.

.. and presumably also execve()?

I do like us starting with just "mimmutable()", since it already
exists. Particularly if chrome already knows how to use it.

Maybe add a flag field (require it to be zero initially) just to allow
any future expansion. Maybe the chrome team has *wanted* to have some
finer granularity thing and currently doesn't use mimmutable() in some
case?

                  Linus