On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:19:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 21-04-23 22:23:12, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 11:01:26AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > On Mon 03-04-23 23:28:29, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > This patch series is in two parts:- > > > > > > > > 1. Currently there are a number of places in the kernel where we assume > > > > VM_SHARED implies that a mapping is writable. Let's be slightly less > > > > strict and relax this restriction in the case that VM_MAYWRITE is not > > > > set. > > > > > > > > This should have no noticeable impact as the lack of VM_MAYWRITE implies > > > > that the mapping can not be made writable via mprotect() or any other > > > > means. > > > > > > > > 2. Align the behaviour of F_SEAL_WRITE and F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE on mmap(). > > > > The latter already clears the VM_MAYWRITE flag for a sealed read-only > > > > mapping, we simply extend this to F_SEAL_WRITE too. > > > > > > > > For this to have effect, we must also invoke call_mmap() before > > > > mapping_map_writable(). > > > > > > > > As this is quite a fundamental change on the assumptions around VM_SHARED > > > > and since this causes a visible change to userland (in permitting read-only > > > > shared mappings on F_SEAL_WRITE mappings), I am putting forward as an RFC > > > > to see if there is anything terribly wrong with it. > > > > > > So what I miss in this series is what the motivation is. Is it that you need > > > to map F_SEAL_WRITE read-only? Why? > > > > > > > This originated from the discussion in [1], which refers to the bug > > reported in [2]. Essentially the user is write-sealing a memfd then trying > > to mmap it read-only, but receives an -EPERM error. > > > > F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE _does_ explicitly permit this but F_SEAL_WRITE does not. > > > > The fcntl() man page states: > > > > Furthermore, trying to create new shared, writable memory-mappings via > > mmap(2) will also fail with EPERM. > > > > So the kernel does not behave as the documentation states. > > > > I took the user-supplied repro and slightly modified it, enclosed > > below. After this patch series, this code works correctly. > > > > I think there's definitely a case for the VM_MAYWRITE part of this patch > > series even if the memfd bits are not considered useful, as we do seem to > > make the implicit assumption that MAP_SHARED == writable even if > > !VM_MAYWRITE which seems odd. > > Thanks for the explanation! Could you please include this information in > the cover letter (perhaps in a form of a short note and reference to the > mailing list) for future reference? Thanks! > > Honza > Sure, apologies for not being clear about that :) I may respin this as a non-RFC (with updated description of course) as its received very little attention as an RFC and I don't think it's so insane/huge a concept as to warrant remaining one. > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR
