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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20221216140641.bf6e47b7c4f5a53f34c8cf9a@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221216140641.bf6e47b7c4f5a53f34c8cf9a@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:40:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CALmYWFuqAruM=Brh_54hWL+HiKD+RABK4y+hzd4phOzOZ_0=CA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 2:06 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Yes. Thanks!

> --- 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));
>         }
> _
>