From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6D6C282EC for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9B77C280004; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 96776280001; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 808B9280004; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E1E280001 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8362A1A0100 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83209446390.27.BE72865 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D64BC003B for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=UOyj8i5s; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of hca@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.158.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hca@linux.ibm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1741702005; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=5W8z3U+N4BjAA+H86UEnGNKa+ovXioHYCGiGvZFiJG0=; b=izgzLeTuM7kckqyet2VkufoEoQZMIPyOaSS7KFRdfu07UrIi65mF/K4R6l1Nx1xyPFstKD m33Kp8Kln8C2EaGqJmRhyBithqSDic43aJRCbsWrUvqP/MJDQ2B6OYIf6Y5cQoybaKLddE FdXkwmNPALLfZqid0UA1SQLWFKelziw= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1741702005; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=A3BxGbNyczGlrAWHj5vaKc57y59r58k34WSztSAYHAaWnt4sinWv8H1iksXRn/lvGsoUd9 zJsTPEwioWYcUf2ChvMDN5VE2Tf6y0YxKYbLedE7zkE0FD5pW09nu1u8oZA8hxTQwFY0tC 8D3mopmz7C2UsFHPJk++WjbNrdvbCHU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=UOyj8i5s; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of hca@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.158.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hca@linux.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 52B7wI3P002107; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:37 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=5W8z3U+N4BjAA+H86UEnGNKa+ovXio HYCGiGvZFiJG0=; b=UOyj8i5s4s50CZX8khMAhnHPHL9WdZNHgSX3MIc5fBSIQR dugtHhElFxj3qqjObRbIkmhkfE4rt4XDJKcl3+QeNzc6Re89Dpyt6/wK0irFuOId j4NjUld8ET7KAFfsnG6i7+ERcV30WgIxgrpGHcKJR2p3MPtAMGLCKR9xAFM9Px/H MfOmlfgQ4N1PmMlT5EHL4YuowT97XXE/daVy3vS0Po2swCsOhKaThYkFLlm8cdaw 4aTd/52s+7yFguBqib7B2G/pItbarsns4rDPYXq10A9le/Ym/WvFBLiQjqfCvES0 L1PdRN/lBNvDIVkYoEzlMQq27pJr69P9Uyt0fgBw== Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 45a7g5v87f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 52BCViwt024087; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:36 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4590kyvp9h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:36 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.102]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 52BE6Wf252953416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:32 GMT Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530FB20043; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C652004B; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from osiris (unknown [9.179.21.35]) by smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:06:31 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:06:30 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Xu , "Liam R . Howlett" , Kees Cook , Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= , Alexander Gordeev , Sven Schnelle , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable 0/2] mseal system mappings fix + s390 enablement Message-ID: <20250311140630.12846Eef-hca@linux.ibm.com> References: <20250311123326.2686682-1-hca@linux.ibm.com> <20250311133736.12846D42-hca@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 4S0zIuxNoDUzIcyMCnnFiJt06R98PYVr X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 4S0zIuxNoDUzIcyMCnnFiJt06R98PYVr X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1093,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-03-11_03,2025-03-11_02,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=950 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2502100000 definitions=main-2503110089 X-Stat-Signature: nf4gq5hgabsmmi3n9yhd3zpqj4ucsb33 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6D64BC003B X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-HE-Tag: 1741702004-986239 X-HE-Meta: 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 X7jW73Xn mJzHLVYWRaaZKZzMJ9a5zoAnprptuOBlbS6s+aFpOHqOGUa39AlDtQ5Cx5PS4iY/QYHKOBm6dgUIcdFyvLHLwmgEgFp3h/jL8AFDL/oyTPs9HP/VXBYN3ouRrR+n9WvnKlh6WFTk1nn5dg4kHujE4VPS5xJu43aoUehyVl7GE5rFSkr7fSyzLP7L5V0Gb6Kf0wlTzpkoJKCFseNyEp1yTnTujcsHx/+TAZKtt X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000161, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 01:42:01PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > Just like for arm64, and x86_64 the s390 part is just adding the new > > vm flag to the _install_mappings() call in vdso code. Otherwise there > > is nothing to be considered. > > No, they are not just adding a flag, they are enabling the sealing of > system mappings, if a user chooses to make use of it, which already breaks > a number of useland applications that rely on remapping these. > > if the architecture code ever needs to unmap/remap these, then this breaks > your architecture. > > I think it would be sensible to clearly indicate that enabling this feature > does not break the s390 architecture and you've confirmed that by checking > the code and ensuring that nowhere does it rely upon doing this. > > Likely that's the case, but I'd suggest you ought to make sure... > > x86-64 and arm64 were checked for this and confirmed to not ever need this. > > This is why we're restricting by architecture. Ok, I was assuming more that whoever enables that config option knows what he or she is doing. However as far as I know there is no s390 user space which relies on remapping vdso mappings. When it comes to unmapping vdso: this would break user space since commit df29a7440c4b ("s390/signal: switch to using vdso for sigreturn and syscall restart") - there haven't been any reports.