[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABi2SkVqa7o7E82m7c8KTsHO4MjwCsdtp21UO+wb_A=r-+aqmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:41:00 -0800
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Isaac Manjarres <isaacmanjarres@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] mm/memfd: Add support for F_SEAL_FUTURE_EXEC
to memfd
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:42 PM Isaac Manjarres
<isaacmanjarres@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 01:29:44PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:02:28PM -0800, Isaac Manjarres wrote:
> Alternatively, MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL could be extended
> to prevent executable mappings, and MEMFD_NOEXEC_SCOPE_NOEXEC_ENFORCED
> could be enabled, but that type of system would prevent memfd buffers
> from being used for execution for legitimate usecases (e.g. JIT), which
> may not be desirable.
>
The JIT case doesn't use execve(memfd), right ?
> --Isaac
Powered by blists - more mailing lists