Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31942-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231212231706.2680890-1-jeffxu@chromium.org> <20231212231706.2680890-12-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <CAHk-=wgn02cpoFEDQGgS+5BUqA2z-=Ks9+PNd-pEJy8h+NOs5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALmYWFu39nzHvBmRsA326GcmV9u=eM-2aCGOvLK31rrb2R9NEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wh_VViVZxjiQ5jtB0q=p=JtJMj2R24UAmj-fL-RNLWxNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEAAPHZpYXHNPdca+xfj77bwYaL6PY-c_oQ54r+=wtJa6_hmCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiVhHmnXviy1xqStLRozC4ziSugTk=1JOc8ORWd2_0h7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABi2SkUTdF6PHrudHTZZ0oWK-oU+T-5+7Eqnei4yCj2fsW2jHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <78111.1705764224@cvs.openbsd.org> <CAHk-=wgdhbLeY=pEY27m4OQuDAn9xkzSLHwE9D8m1Dw8a++n=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgdhbLeY=pEY27m4OQuDAn9xkzSLHwE9D8m1Dw8a++n=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 16:16:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CABi2SkVXgyG4r-SzkXx0-MOQ2dqhy1ewwhvfXMJLw066i1zJKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 11/11] mseal:add documentation
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@openbsd.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Stephen_R=C3=B6ttger?= <sroettger@google.com>, 
	Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org, 
	jannh@google.com, willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	jorgelo@chromium.org, groeck@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pedro.falcato@gmail.com, 
	dave.hansen@intel.com, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 8:40=E2=80=AFAM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 07:23, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@openbsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > There is an one large difference remainig between mimmutable() and msea=
l(),
> > which is how other system calls behave.
> >
> > We return EPERM for failures in all the system calls that fail upon
> > immutable memory (since Oct 2022).
> >
> > You are returning EACESS.
> >
> > Before it is too late, do you want to reconsider that return value, or
> > do you have a justification for the choice?
>
> I don't think there's any real reason for the difference.
>
> Jeff - mind changing the EACESS to EPERM, and we'll have something
> that is more-or-less compatible between Linux and OpenBSD?
>
Sounds Good. I will make the necessary changes in the next version.

-Jeff

>              Linus