Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-179181-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:28:17 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, jeffxu@chromium.org,
	keescook@chromium.org, jannh@google.com, sroettger@google.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	usama.anjum@collabora.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com,
	surenb@google.com, merimus@google.com, rdunlap@infradead.org,
	jeffxu@google.com, 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, deraadt@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal
Message-ID: <ZkPXcT_JuQeZCAv0@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
 <871q646rea.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871q646rea.fsf@meer.lwn.net>

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 02:59:57PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:19 +0000 jeffxu@chromium.org wrote:
> >
> >> This patchset proposes a new mseal() syscall for the Linux kernel.
> >
> > I have not moved this into mm-stable for a 6.10 merge.  Mainly because
> > of the total lack of Reviewed-by:s and Acked-by:s.
> >
> > The code appears to be stable enough for a merge.
> >
> > It's awkward that we're in conference this week, but I ask people to
> > give consideration to the desirability of moving mseal() into mainline
> > sometime over the next week, please.
> 
> I hate to be obnoxious, but I *was* copied ... :)
> 
> Not taking a position on merging, but I have to ask: are we convinced at
> this point that mseal() isn't a chrome-only system call?  Did we ever
> see the glibc patches that were promised?

I think _this_ version of mseal() is OpenBSD's mimmutable() with a
basically unused extra 'flags' argument.  As such, we have an existance
proof that it's useful beyond Chrome.

I think Liam still had concerns around the
walk-the-vmas-twice-to-error-out-early part of the implementation?
Although we can always fix the implementation later; changing the API
is hard.