On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:26 AM Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 02:10:58PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > > * Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> [250224 13:55]: > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:52:13AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > On 2/24/25 10:44, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > > > For example: > > > > > Consider the case below in src/third_party/kernel/v6.6/fs/proc/task_mmu.c, > > > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT > > > > > [ilog2(VM_SEALED)] = "sl", > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > > > Redefining VM_SEALED to VM_NONE for 32 bit won't detect the problem > > > > > in case that "#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT" line is missing. > > > > > > > > > > Please note, this has been like this since the first version of > > > > > mseal() RFC patch, and I prefer to keep it this way. > > > > > > > > That logic is reasonable. But it's different from the _vast_ majority of > > > > other flags. > > > > > > > > So what justifies VM_SEALED being so different? It's leading to pretty > > > > objectively ugly code in this series. > > > > > > Note that VM_SEALED is the "is this VMA sealed?" bit itself. The define > > > for "should we perform system mapping sealing?" is intentionally separate > > > here, so that it can be Kconfig and per-arch toggled, etc. > > > > > > > Considering Dave is the second person that did not find the huge commit > > message helpful, can we please limit the commit message to be about the > > actual code and not the entire series? > > > > I thought we said that it was worth while making this change in v5? > > Right, please minimize patch #1's commit log to just what it is doing, > etc, and leave the rest of the rationale in the 0/N cover letter. > Sure. > -- > Kees Cook
