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: <hnlyeo4bnmxlraihgpdqfucxfpkqu7zmcxs5yqokohudliotpe@ngiv444c2bdp>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:32:04 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jannh@...gle.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        lorenzo.stoakes@...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

* Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org> [250224 14:23]:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:11 AM Liam R. Howlett
> <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> [250224 13:55]:
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:52:13AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Considering Dave is the second person that did not find the huge commit
> > message helpful, can we please limit the commit message to be about the
> > actual code and not the entire series?
> >
> > I thought we said that it was worth while making this change in v5?
> >
> I include the cover letter's content in the first commit message to
> clearly communicate the purpose of the entire patch series, saving
> maintainers' time when accepting the patch.

Having more text than patch for such a patch seems unreasonable.  I'd
find it more acceptable if it were a complicated race condition, but
everyone is getting lost in the summary.

> 
> Should I still include that, and add what the first patch does, and
> separate it from the cover letter with  "----"? What do you think?

Here is my v5 answer, I think it was clear about not putting the entire
summary into the first patch.

[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/ml3x5qchmnehdzz2rxsdcdghivaqffojiweuhvpvzw45u3l5bh@23sblrom3m36/

Thanks,
Liam