[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgdhbLeY=pEY27m4OQuDAn9xkzSLHwE9D8m1Dw8a++n=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 08:40:09 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...nbsd.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>, Stephen Röttger <sroettger@...gle.com>,
Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
jannh@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
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: [RFC PATCH v3 11/11] mseal:add documentation
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 07:23, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...nbsd.org> wrote:
>
> There is an one large difference remainig between mimmutable() and mseal(),
> which is how other system calls behave.
>
> We return EPERM for failures in all the system calls that fail upon
> immutable memory (since Oct 2022).
>
> You are returning EACESS.
>
> Before it is too late, do you want to reconsider that return value, or
> do you have a justification for the choice?
I don't think there's any real reason for the difference.
Jeff - mind changing the EACESS to EPERM, and we'll have something
that is more-or-less compatible between Linux and OpenBSD?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists