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: <8a9c918d-7350-4fda-a2fa-7f613b71d047@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 11:02:01 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.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 10:55, Kees Cook wrote:
>> 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.
> Note that VM_SEALED is the "is this VMA sealed?" bit itself. The define
> for "should we perform system mapping sealing?" is intentionally separate
> here, so that it can be Kconfig and per-arch toggled, etc.

Ahh, makes sense.

> As for the name, I have no strong opinion. Perhaps VM_SEALED_SYSTEM_MAPPING ?

Yeah, that'd work. Just something more consistent with the existing
naming and more compact. I think:

	VM_SEALED_SYS

would fit in nicely.