Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:46:59 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, jeffxu@chromium.org,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, dverkamp@chromium.org, hughd@google.com,
        jorgelo@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        jannh@google.com, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC
Message-ID: <Y5yS8wCnuYGLHMj4@x1n>
References: <20221207154939.2532830-1-jeffxu@google.com>
 <20221207154939.2532830-4-jeffxu@google.com>
 <202212080821.5AE7EE99@keescook>
 <CALmYWFuKR538vHxqYH1p6mb9iShOohf5bpHZXSfUN4KQHYiwaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALmYWFuKR538vHxqYH1p6mb9iShOohf5bpHZXSfUN4KQHYiwaA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Jeff,

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 02:55:45PM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > +     if (!(flags & (MFD_EXEC | MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL))) {

[...]

> > > +             pr_warn_ratelimited(
> > > +                     "memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=%d '%s'\n",
> > > +                     task_pid_nr(current), get_task_comm(comm, current));

This will be frequently dumped right now with mm-unstable.  Is that what it
wanted to achieve?

[   10.822575] memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=491 'systemd'
[   10.824743] memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=495 '(sd-executor)'
...

If there's already a sane default value (and also knobs for the user to
change the default) not sure whether it's saner to just keep it silent as
before?

-- 
Peter Xu