linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE

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: <20181120204710.GB22801@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:47:10 -0800
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        marcandre.lureau@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more
 robust

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Joel,
> > 
> >> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
> >>> <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:  
> >>>> 
> >>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
> >>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
> >>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
> >>>> Andy [2].
> >>>> 
> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181111173650.GA256781@google.com/
> >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@amacapital.net/
> >>>> 
> >>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> >>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")  
> >>> 
> >>> What tree is that commit in?  Can we not just fold this in?  
> >> 
> >> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
> > 
> > Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed
> tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only
> barely a git tree.

I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did
things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated.

I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
the original, then I can do that and send another patch.

- Joel