On Thu 12-10-23 18:04:29, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> The seal_check_future_write() function is called by shmem_mmap() or
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap() to disallow any future writable mappings of an memfd
> sealed this way.
>
> The F_SEAL_WRITE flag is not checked here, as that is handled via the
> mapping->i_mmap_writable mechanism and so any attempt at a mapping would
> fail before this could be run.
>
> However we intend to change this, meaning this check can be performed for
> F_SEAL_WRITE mappings also.
>
> The logic here is equally applicable to both flags, so update this function
> to accommodate both and rename it accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
For some reason only this one patch landed in my inbox but I've checked all
three on lore and they look good to me. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
to all of them. Thanks!
Honza
> ---
> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/mm.h | 15 ++++++++-------
> mm/shmem.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index 06693bb1153d..5c333373dcc9 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static int hugetlbfs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> vm_flags_set(vma, VM_HUGETLB | VM_DONTEXPAND);
> vma->vm_ops = &hugetlb_vm_ops;
>
> - ret = seal_check_future_write(info->seals, vma);
> + ret = seal_check_write(info->seals, vma);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index bae234d18d81..26d7dc3b342b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -4078,25 +4078,26 @@ static inline void mem_dump_obj(void *object) {}
> #endif
>
> /**
> - * seal_check_future_write - Check for F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE flag and handle it
> + * seal_check_write - Check for F_SEAL_WRITE or F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE flags and
> + * handle them.
> * @seals: the seals to check
> * @vma: the vma to operate on
> *
> - * Check whether F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE is set; if so, do proper check/handling on
> - * the vma flags. Return 0 if check pass, or <0 for errors.
> + * Check whether F_SEAL_WRITE or F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE are set; if so, do proper
> + * check/handling on the vma flags. Return 0 if check pass, or <0 for errors.
> */
> -static inline int seal_check_future_write(int seals, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +static inline int seal_check_write(int seals, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> {
> - if (seals & F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE) {
> + if (seals & (F_SEAL_WRITE | F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE)) {
> /*
> * New PROT_WRITE and MAP_SHARED mmaps are not allowed when
> - * "future write" seal active.
> + * write seals are active.
> */
> if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
> return -EPERM;
>
> /*
> - * Since an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE sealed memfd can be mapped as
> + * Since an F_SEAL_[FUTURE_]WRITE sealed memfd can be mapped as
> * MAP_SHARED and read-only, take care to not allow mprotect to
> * revert protections on such mappings. Do this only for shared
> * mappings. For private mappings, don't need to mask
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 6503910b0f54..cab053831fea 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -2405,7 +2405,7 @@ static int shmem_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> int ret;
>
> - ret = seal_check_future_write(info->seals, vma);
> + ret = seal_check_write(info->seals, vma);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> --
> 2.42.0
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
