From patchwork Mon May 13 19:15:47 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: =?utf-8?q?Barnab=C3=A1s_P=C5=91cze?= X-Patchwork-Id: 796601 Received: from mail-0301.mail-europe.com (mail-0301.mail-europe.com [188.165.51.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3D0745016 for ; Mon, 13 May 2024 19:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=188.165.51.139 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715627768; cv=none; b=fFT6V4JMNwvpZV/+Q/VxBJacn7t7HTIocweNqM24JtXJrgB8+8zrCwzJ6TAy+tWienZ0tOe45A1pEmZDx2wYKo6JzpqKKm0mZBNac01EEe3vEz3lNrtrzWzzGTz0x32Ki6vtX8X8tVq8/h9V4vBWHtZVWTSC9JLNdxCIPxAwg84= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715627768; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VTNZ62sNInU+Dd0cJEiFTSXsmrSxsvXnwZWnDCIDW1w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hgldSHEFB7SUdny1m39ODq5BV1ccwqI3lMEjXp9OkFqOxlUiv2OiKt73Qlo4tJ3Kq6lNiiw3UnXUT5GVX8mbyD/pNFnoiuZ2XVFUymhEjiHzWnpAFJ6Nkrth68Nk/kV1b72RQA2cNeCSvUOMIV4tbA5tZ/H6Pmac7jWo2T0u8/k= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=protonmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=protonmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.b=paUo6HvC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=188.165.51.139 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=protonmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=protonmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.b="paUo6HvC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1715627756; x=1715886956; bh=dnjH8R0E9R4kgtyNo0zRZg9A30KPJQ23f20lyVjqLUg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=paUo6HvCMLe0YNG7ppE6+OPvGgid8o+AocVm7IAPnTOOrvFA/8N/tGUWjA2zzNR1c GVx7xT77FF6o+JP6+Zh09H3imzNnz4rQhZagjM1M4nrgThGaih72r6wrtOP2kNxl1N DHbwRXhrAulrtdz47x25GKugAUt/IFC4+3U0hkAal6Rsx3QureSft5H303iwrUXdAZ 2d1HKUW2K6Qb8kG8VCuE3vE68ZJkRpggJJeRMvYUA1o6wPDzzN/Xw3TwTFvAZ09tQI fER0eEvBGTX1P0vNjY9qTuqab6A7AQNHppc7siqrvJvq4Vy0zENWkFww/RnFLoYQde aPh/FMAymeUSw== Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 19:15:47 +0000 To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, dverkamp@chromium.org, hughd@google.com, jeffxu@google.com, jorgelo@chromium.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, keescook@chromium.org From: =?utf-8?q?Barnab=C3=A1s_P=C5=91cze?= Subject: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING` Message-ID: <20240513191544.94754-1-pobrn@protonmail.com> Feedback-ID: 20568564:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 67eeb4ec5ac3eaf815ed12f6c17c9a0732f87faa Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should remove the executable bits and set `F_SEAL_EXEC` to prevent further modifications to the executable bits as per the comment in the uapi header file: not executable and sealed to prevent changing to executable However, currently, it also unsets `F_SEAL_SEAL`, essentially acting as a superset of `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`. Nothing implies that it should be so, and indeed up until the second version of the of the patchset[0] that introduced `MFD_EXEC` and `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL`, `F_SEAL_SEAL` was not removed, however it was changed in the third revision of the patchset[1] without a clear explanation. This behaviour is suprising for application developers, there is no documentation that would reveal that `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` has the additional effect of `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`. So do not remove `F_SEAL_SEAL` when `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` is requested. This is technically an ABI break, but it seems very unlikely that an application would depend on this behaviour (unless by accident). [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220805222126.142525-3-jeffxu@google.com/ [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221202013404.163143-3-jeffxu@google.com/ Fixes: 105ff5339f498a ("mm/memfd: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC") Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze Reviewed-by: Jeff Xu Reviewed-by: David Rheinsberg Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze Reviewed-by: Jeff Xu Reviewed-by: David Rheinsberg --- Or did I miss the explanation as to why MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL should imply MFD_ALLOW_SEALING? If so, please direct me to it and sorry for the noise. --- mm/memfd.c | 9 ++++----- tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/memfd.c b/mm/memfd.c index 7d8d3ab3fa37..8b7f6afee21d 100644 --- a/mm/memfd.c +++ b/mm/memfd.c @@ -356,12 +356,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(memfd_create, inode->i_mode &= ~0111; file_seals = memfd_file_seals_ptr(file); - if (file_seals) { - *file_seals &= ~F_SEAL_SEAL; + if (file_seals) *file_seals |= F_SEAL_EXEC; - } - } else if (flags & MFD_ALLOW_SEALING) { - /* MFD_EXEC and MFD_ALLOW_SEALING are set */ + } + + if (flags & MFD_ALLOW_SEALING) { file_seals = memfd_file_seals_ptr(file); if (file_seals) *file_seals &= ~F_SEAL_SEAL; diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c index 18f585684e20..b6a7ad68c3c1 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c @@ -1151,7 +1151,7 @@ static void test_noexec_seal(void) mfd_def_size, MFD_CLOEXEC | MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL); mfd_assert_mode(fd, 0666); - mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_EXEC); + mfd_assert_has_seals(fd, F_SEAL_SEAL | F_SEAL_EXEC); mfd_fail_chmod(fd, 0777); close(fd); }