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 5E962C282EC for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DB94A280002; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D6943280001; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:21:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C09EA280002; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:21:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1146280001 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:21:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AC3801E0 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 83209483182.25.491DDE7 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC8220028 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=NS87e9Hu; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf03.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=1741702886; 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=yxH128XxdZ/UKwOSclHlGQO4gSIsVnfgWzByxlVyMf0=; b=jAcctuavDfvS+qOzS+wOafA1zUs5M7ma8HPudofDmOPIKSOfhauizvD/9dbxSWYzhaXrF9 /N71P5+8s0NROrUdtGxz1gY7+2GVp83ST8zxw1CTfbcGBRVpKals/t+hoE/t//78lEbTgc SZJOm7bUPkFZ/lcBSHzApwJdZg2KeCI= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1741702886; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=p6uKrkAzI3pruERMWY3uNxHxHEHDfYN4Hjn9uT6l5ZeOwMj3JF8ubavjhamqb6vlIMRBO9 /DAPBKvcUXkKZnnaQncgDdYANVTIvVEWvxSsZPKpwRiqCSmH/Fm2rLbtrH1siSrBdkS8/T nco81SvldoyxR9ADKw6Sbb+bz7JDInI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=NS87e9Hu; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com; spf=pass (imf03.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 (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 52B9hkle004865; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:22 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=yxH128XxdZ/UKwOSclHlGQO4gSIsVn fgWzByxlVyMf0=; b=NS87e9Hu8S1dudL3FeZjVokuekhEcaaAKhtjIytQZsX4F/ 5KZAiiY/anko8RpU70NsY2ox5/hRNfo5Zl3Pfs0guQcNXJJOI+q1sNdyXMKSJpSf Ae+bl1D2GXveHHvGeP3sXo3jDvA1ZSKEj0DcJMdkeWfztAj6oQBkOfM5AZ0K8QHM KQ9KYPTfgUHUFt4RjR3hjWkUNhtLkZoj/Y8NVw3CCdZj7XwcdtZyEamJUi+LudeH TbkpJCv9rIwPrc+6Zl09K1Im1EEh+bO/yswpqeL5P0SpTJPV/64JQlcBb+qPeuTk 7olSazADFuPLgP0apwzxX1MDMxUplX5f1z+RuEBQ== Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 45a78qve48-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 52BDSQum027631; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:21 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.230]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4591qkmhaq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:21 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.103]) by smtprelay06.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 52BELG9V22544774 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:17 GMT Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9C820040; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4227E20043; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from osiris (unknown [9.179.21.35]) by smtpav04.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:21:16 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:21:14 +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: <20250311142114.12846Fd5-hca@linux.ibm.com> References: <20250311123326.2686682-1-hca@linux.ibm.com> <20250311133736.12846D42-hca@linux.ibm.com> <20250311140630.12846Eef-hca@linux.ibm.com> <6f106b28-7d5e-468f-8a94-e94357a950ee@lucifer.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6f106b28-7d5e-468f-8a94-e94357a950ee@lucifer.local> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: MUlHuszvREW12eXE0On2tzLrxcgpdf3Y X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: MUlHuszvREW12eXE0On2tzLrxcgpdf3Y 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 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=550 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2502100000 definitions=main-2503110089 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7DC8220028 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Stat-Signature: cg1wwdbf9jbbrx9wa7qx6gnphr3miqad X-HE-Tag: 1741702886-537913 X-HE-Meta: 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 gX/88E63 OiLBQzgBGSL4NRgFQ7K+olcHLzq/Kcp0W9CocVo0Yn0ity4Saxd5v0FtCiaqYCJHC0dxgG+CV0frpDaSggBjZXNHjlogClPdxQ5jtVKH0u8oe797UFJj/oTRtFCYbusay6R0e96SjOZhvJK4/wqLj4+lXJ3PEAsMpCKx3GqDkJ5fJogKmSK8ntbNe9Qt4hK39p/n9FP9dXnZqkvx826YSy2isLTjME7cF3TYi X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.005997, 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 02:09:30PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > 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. > > OK that seems to implicitly suggest that you're fine with sealing then? > > I had a quick glance and it seemed fine for s390. I mean it's _weird_ to remap > any of this stuff so it'd be the odd one out that does it (ppc _seems_ to in > _some_ circumstances need it, for instance). > > So I think we're good? :) Yes, for s390 we are good.