[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALmYWFs3Qm_89e8cCcVu0otrZpMVe3rWxqANAQwQDJgaK3S+oA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:06:49 -0800
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com>
To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, jeffxu@...omium.org,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, dverkamp@...omium.org, hughd@...gle.com,
jorgelo@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
jannh@...gle.com, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:55 AM Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/16/22 16:40, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 2:06 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:46:58 -0800 Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:35 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:11:44AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> >>>>> Once per boot seems too little, it would be nice if we can list all processes.
> >>>>> I agree ratelimited might be too much.
> >>>>> There is a feature gap here for logging.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kees, what do you think ?
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree once per boot is kind of frustrating "I fixed the one warning,
> >>>> oh, now it's coming from a different process". But ratelimit is, in
> >>>> retrospect, still too often.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's go with per boot -- this should be noisy "enough" to get the
> >>>> changes in API into the callers without being too much of a hassle.
> >>>>
> >>> Agreed. Let's go with per boot.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Andrew, what is your preference ? I can send a patch or you
> >>> directly fix it in mm-unstable ?
> >>
> >> Like this?
> >>
> > Yes. Thanks!
> >
>
> Sorry jumping into this discussion a bit late. Is it possible to provide
> a way to enable full logging as a debug option to tag more processes?
>
Codewise it is possible, maybe by adding a sysctl or CONFIG_, but I am not sure
the best practice to do this with the kernel?
Kees/Andrew, do you have suggestions ?
Thanks
Jeff
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists