[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250311142114.12846Fd5-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:21:14 +0100
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@...omium.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable 0/2] mseal system mappings fix + s390
enablement
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 02:09:30PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > When it comes to unmapping vdso: this would break user space since
> > commit df29a7440c4b ("s390/signal: switch to using vdso for sigreturn
> > and syscall restart") - there haven't been any reports.
>
> OK that seems to implicitly suggest that you're fine with sealing then?
>
> I had a quick glance and it seemed fine for s390. I mean it's _weird_ to remap
> any of this stuff so it'd be the odd one out that does it (ppc _seems_ to in
> _some_ circumstances need it, for instance).
>
> So I think we're good? :)
Yes, for s390 we are good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists