linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mseal.rst additional fix

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: <5e1ef8a0-f063-4166-9d93-cf047cdd2792@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:37:00 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: jeffxu@...omium.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
 corbet@....net
Cc: jorgelo@...omium.org, groeck@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jannh@...gle.com,
 sroettger@...gle.com, pedro.falcato@...il.com,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
 deraadt@...nbsd.org, usama.anjum@...labora.com, surenb@...gle.com,
 merimus@...gle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
 enh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mseal.rst additional fix



On 10/7/24 9:18 PM, jeffxu@...omium.org wrote:
> From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
> 
> Change "overwrite" to overwrites"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/userspace-api/mseal.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/mseal.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/mseal.rst
> index 41102f74c5e2..54bbcce330ec 100644
> --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/mseal.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/mseal.rst
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ Blocked mm syscall for sealed mapping
>     The first set of syscalls to block is munmap, mremap, mmap. They can
>     either leave an empty space in the address space, therefore allowing
>     replacement with a new mapping with new set of attributes, or can
> -   overwrite the existing mapping with another mapping.
> +   overwrites the existing mapping with another mapping.

No, that one is correct as is.

>  
>     mprotect and pkey_mprotect are blocked because they changes the
>     protection bits (RWX) of the mapping.

-- 
~Randy