linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] mseal, system mappings: kernel config and header change

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: <385e1498-2444-4a7a-a1b0-0013b0b8fd68@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 10:52:13 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org, jannh@...gle.com,
 torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com,
 avagin@...il.com, benjamin@...solutions.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jorgelo@...omium.org,
 sroettger@...gle.com, hch@....de, ojeda@...nel.org,
 thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de, adobriyan@...il.com,
 johannes@...solutions.net, pedro.falcato@...il.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
 willy@...radead.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de, mark.rutland@....com,
 linus.walleij@...aro.org, Jason@...c4.com, deller@....de,
 rdunlap@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net, peterx@...hat.com,
 f.fainelli@...il.com, gerg@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 mingo@...nel.org, ardb@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, ardb@...gle.com, enh@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
 groeck@...omium.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
 aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com, mike.rapoport@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] mseal, system mappings: kernel config and header
 change

On 2/24/25 10:44, Jeff Xu wrote:
> For example:
> Consider the case below in src/third_party/kernel/v6.6/fs/proc/task_mmu.c,
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> [ilog2(VM_SEALED)] = "sl",
> #endif
> 
> Redefining VM_SEALED  to VM_NONE for 32 bit won't detect the problem
> in case that  "#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT" line is missing.
> 
> Please note, this has been like this since the first version of
> mseal() RFC patch, and I prefer to keep it this way.

That logic is reasonable. But it's different from the _vast_ majority of
other flags.

So what justifies VM_SEALED being so different? It's leading to pretty
objectively ugly code in this series.