Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-179251-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:01:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt@openbsd.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal
Message-Id: <20240514160150.3ed0fda8af5cbd2f17c625e6@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <56001.1715726927@cvs.openbsd.org>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
	<20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
	<871q646rea.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
	<ZkPXcT_JuQeZCAv0@casper.infradead.org>
	<56001.1715726927@cvs.openbsd.org>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:48:47 -0600 "Theo de Raadt" <deraadt@openbsd.org> wrote:

> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, it is close enough.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes I am a bit worried about the point Liam brings up -- we've discussed
> it privately at length.  Matthew, to keep it short I have a different
> viewpoint:
> 
> Some of the Linux m* system calls have non-conforming, partial-work-then-return-error
> behaviour.  I cannot find anything like this in any system call in any other
> operating system, and I believe there is a defacto rule against doing this, and
> Linux has an optimization which violating this, and I think it could be fixed
> with fairly minor expense, and can't imagine it affecting a single application.

Thanks.

> I worry that the non-atomicity will one day be used by an attacker.

How might an attacker exploit this?