linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] mseal, system mappings: uprobe mapping

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: <CABi2SkUi6EOfMag37GOLNt3Fb71-QgYiXbcwVuiVTreRuEFW2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:38:47 -0800
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org, 
	jannh@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org, 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 v7 6/7] mseal, system mappings: uprobe mapping

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:25 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/26, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > >
> > > Like I said, Jeff opposes the change. I disagree with him, and agree with you,
> > > because this is very silly.
> > >
> > > But I don't want to hold up this series with that discussion (this is for his
> > > sake...)
> >
> > Neither me, so lets go with VM_SEALED_SYSMAP.
> >
> > My only objection is that
> >
> >       vm_flags = VM_EXEC|VM_MAYEXEC|VM_DONTCOPY|VM_IO;
> >       vm_flags |= VM_SEALED_SYSMAP;
> >
> > looks unnecessarily confusing to me,
> >
> >       vm_flags = VM_EXEC|VM_MAYEXEC|VM_DONTCOPY|VM_IO|VM_SEALED_SYSMAP;
> >
> > or just
> >
> >       vma = _install_special_mapping(...,
> >                               VM_EXEC|VM_MAYEXEC|VM_DONTCOPY|VM_IO|VM_SEALED_SYSMAP,
> >                               ...
> >
> > looks more readable. But this is cosmetic/subjective, so I won't argue/insist.
>
> Agreed. This would be good.
>
> >
> > > Jeff - perhaps drop this and let's return to it in a follow up so this series
> > > isn't held up?
> >
> > Up to you and Jeff.
> >
> > But this patch looks "natural" to me in this series.
>
> OK, I mean in that case I'm ok with it as-is, as you confirms there's no
> issue, I've looked at the code and there's no issue.
>
> It was only if we wanted to try the VM_SEALED thing, i.e. _always_ seal
> then it'd do better outside of the series as there'd be a discussion about
> maybe changing this CONFIG_64BIT thing yada yada.
>
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
>
> Jeff - in that case, do NOT drop this one :P but do please look at the
> above style nit.
>
Ok.


> Let's keep things moving... :)