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: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 16:39:31 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: jeffxu@...omium.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org, jannh@...gle.com, 
	sroettger@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.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, deraadt@...nbsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 11/11] mseal:add documentation

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 15:17, <jeffxu@...omium.org> wrote:
> +
> +**types**: bit mask to specify the sealing types, they are:

I really want a real-life use-case for more than one bit of "don't modify".

IOW, when would you *ever* say "seal this area, but MADV_DONTNEED is ok"?

Or when would you *ever* say "seal this area, but mprotect()" is ok.

IOW, I want to know why we don't just do the BSD immutable thing, and
why we need this multi-level sealing thing.

               Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists