linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mremap refactor: check src address for vma boundaries first.

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]

Message-ID: <CABi2SkVrk-MyMGVDzRZi++7tzCu6k92Vz4hyaVHY2nbYDxd97g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 20:45:44 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>, 
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, 
	pedro.falcato@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, jeffxu@...gle.com, 
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, oliver.sang@...el.com, 
	vbabka@...e.cz, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] mremap refactor: check src address for vma
 boundaries first.

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:55 PM Liam R. Howlett
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> The majority of the comments to V2 are mine, you only told us that
> splitting a sealed vma is wrong (after I asked you directly to answer)
> and then you made a comment about testing of the patch set. Besides the
> direct responses to me, your comment was "wait for me to test".
>
Please share this link for  " Besides the direct responses to me, your
comment was "wait for me to test".
Or  pop up that email by responding to it, to remind me.  Thanks.

> You are holding us hostage by asking for more testing but not sharing
> what is and is not valid for mseal() - or even answering questions on
> tests you run.
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient

> These patches should be rejected in favour of fixing the feature like it
> should have been written in the first place.
This is not ture.

Without removing arch_unmap, it is impossible to implement in-loop.
And I have mentioned this during initial discussion of mseal patch, as
well as when Pedro expressed the interest on in-loop approach.  If you
like reference, I can find the links for you.

I'm glad that arch_unmap is removed now and resulting in much cleaner
code, it has always been a question/mysterial to me ever since I read
that code.   Thanks to Linus's leadership and Michael Ellerman's quick
response,  this is now resolved.

Best regards,
-Jeff