[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABi2SkVXgyG4r-SzkXx0-MOQ2dqhy1ewwhvfXMJLw066i1zJKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 16:16:39 -0800
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...nbsd.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, Jan 20, 2024 at 8:40 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Sounds Good. I will make the necessary changes in the next version.
-Jeff
> Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists