Re: [PATCH v6 1/7] mseal, system mappings: kernel config and header change

Kees Cook
2025-02-24T19:25:08Z

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:10:22AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:03 AM Liam R. Howlett
> <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Jeff Xu <jeffxu@chromium.org> [250224 13:44]:
> > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:21 AM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2/24/25 09:45, jeffxu@chromium.org wrote:
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * mseal of userspace process's system mappings.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS
> > > > > +#define MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS_VM_FLAG VM_SEALED
> > > > > +#else
> > > > > +#define MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS_VM_FLAG VM_NONE
> > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > This ends up looking pretty wonky in practice:
> > > >
> > > > > + vm_flags = VM_READ|VM_MAYREAD|VM_IO|VM_DONTDUMP|VM_PFNMAP;
> > > > > + vm_flags |= MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS_VM_FLAG;
> > > >
> > > > because MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS_VM_FLAG is so much different from the
> > > > other ones.
> > > >
> > > > Would it really hurt to have
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> > > > /* VM is sealed, in vm_flags */
> > > > #define VM_SEALED _BITUL(63)
> > > > +#else
> > > > +#define VM_SEALED VM_NONE
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > VM_SEALED isn't defined in 32-bit systems, and mseal.c isn't part of
> > > the build. This is intentional. Any 32-bit code trying to use the
> > > sealing function or the VM_SEALED flag will immediately fail
> > > compilation. This makes it easier to identify incorrect usage.
> > >
> >
> > The reason that two #defines are needed is because you can have mseal
> > enabled while not sealing system mappings, so for this to be clean we
> > need two defines.
> >
> > However MSEAL_SYSTEM_MAPPINGS_VM_FLAG, is _way_ too long, in my opinion.
> > Keeping with "VM_SEALED" I'd suggest "VM_SYSTEM_SEALED".
> >
> How about MSEAL_SYSTME_MAPPINGS as Kees suggested ?
>
> The VM_SYSTEM_SEALED doesn't have the MSEAL key or the MAPPING, so it
> might take longer for the new reader to understand what it is.

I think to address Dave's concern, it should start with "VM_". We use
"SEAL" already with VM_SEALED, so the "M" in "MSEAL" may be redundant,
and to clarify the system mapping, how avout VM_SEAL_SYSMAP ? That
capture's, hopefully, Dave, Liam, and your thoughts about the naming?

--
Kees Cook