linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/mm: 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]

Message-ID: <CABi2SkUfKO6ptg8qwWgYMEfmJ2wGpff4kAV25yNPQDFOivVQkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:34:40 -0700
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, pedro.falcato@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, 
	keescook@...omium.org, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, 
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/mm: mseal_test add more tests

Hi Matthew

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:58 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > > Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can
> > > > > ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave?
> > > > >
> > It is not an RFC because it doesn't change any semanic to mseal. The
> > updated test will pass on linux main as well as 6.10. The increased
> > coverage will help to prevent future regression, i.e. during
> > refactoring.
>
> You seem to not understand that there is disagreement on the semantics
> of mseal().  I mean, ther's been a lot of arguing about that over the
> last week.  There's understanable reluctance to accept a large pile of
> tests saying "this just ensures that mseal behaves the way I think it
> should", when there is substantial disagreement that the way you think
> it should behave is in fact the way it should behave.  Be prepared to
> argue for each semantic that you think it should have.
>
If this is about in-loop discussion, this patch also passes the latest
mm-unstable branch which has in-loop change (pending Liam's fix on
mmap). The increased test coverage also helps to ensure the in-loop
change's correctness on sealing.

I'm not aware there are other semantic changes on mseal, we can
continue this discussion on V2 patch, if necessary.

Thanks
-Jeff