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 14:06:41 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        jeffxu@chromium.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.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: <20221216140641.bf6e47b7c4f5a53f34c8cf9a@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALmYWFuENPRvCAOF6of=Ufct5jjAbJ=iDyH7eODhdbm24uAK3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20221207154939.2532830-1-jeffxu@google.com>
        <20221207154939.2532830-4-jeffxu@google.com>
        <202212080821.5AE7EE99@keescook>
        <CALmYWFuKR538vHxqYH1p6mb9iShOohf5bpHZXSfUN4KQHYiwaA@mail.gmail.com>
        <Y5yS8wCnuYGLHMj4@x1n>
        <CALmYWFsDhX76zbcyhYAW-u0BBwD+m+TKpt4_pZTMt+22zHhrGQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <20221216094259.bec91e4abd6cf54a05ce2813@linux-foundation.org>
        <CALmYWFsNp87a5uVQUAb4PG0khFN8Xxd=ibh9Q7g-Y0XW1Mn-8Q@mail.gmail.com>
        <202212161233.85C9783FB@keescook>
        <CALmYWFuENPRvCAOF6of=Ufct5jjAbJ=iDyH7eODhdbm24uAK3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 13:46:58 -0800 Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:35 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:11:44AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > Once per boot seems too little, it would be nice if we can list all processes.
> > > I agree ratelimited might be too much.
> > > There is a feature gap here for logging.
> > >
> > > Kees, what do you think ?
> >
> > I agree once per boot is kind of frustrating "I fixed the one warning,
> > oh, now it's coming from a different process". But ratelimit is, in
> > retrospect, still too often.
> >
> > Let's go with per boot -- this should be noisy "enough" to get the
> > changes in API into the callers without being too much of a hassle.
> >
> Agreed.  Let's go with per boot.
> 
> Hi Andrew, what is your preference ? I can send a patch  or you
> directly fix it in mm-unstable ?

Like this?

--- a/mm/memfd.c~mm-memfd-add-mfd_noexec_seal-and-mfd_exec-fix-3
+++ a/mm/memfd.c
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(memfd_create,
 			flags |= MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL;
 			break;
 		default:
-			pr_warn_ratelimited(
+			pr_warn_once(
 				"memfd_create(): MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL is enforced, pid=%d '%s'\n",
 				task_pid_nr(current), get_task_comm(comm, current));
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(memfd_create,
 #else
 		flags |= MFD_EXEC;
 #endif
-		pr_warn_ratelimited(
+		pr_warn_once(
 			"memfd_create() without MFD_EXEC nor MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, pid=%d '%s'\n",
 			task_pid_nr(current), get_task_comm(comm, current));
 	}
_