From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 9BAD73DB9B; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:37:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706567827; cv=none; b=igr0bdk/AsCDRyvJEzMP/NayUCvfvCRg1NsDtTKAbG84+nc74MHAgmiMC2LsgDo4hep1DC0dVCxvmflVsvJysyLJWDEeiBdMaZg43wmCSrRMbQg+JVNIDZILsOg5ooUhixiUlZGCpuaGPz/zpgr6MuiQZNB+MzwznNDiDCd+5Y4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706567827; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wUepOEIuKF+pt+mzZ2cf9etKM0arZg3q5iaJxXS0bzo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=c6xjihqPNaftBxYhcTnj0HK4gY+Obt5HH8z2NpilaB0vEDvPHB9RZOijztBgh9eLwtusNSkDw9umFUf6HG4DlLJaxTd3ffc40mgpKMDgKR7ECK9FQbTTHKEspNZ2p8dFPxHRbzNAg7ZUVSME1VR1wGGdrConuwgsO2qDn4zWDLM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=cf1MSkKV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="cf1MSkKV" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 3240145ACB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1706567819; bh=yAQLX1Us/QviIhk0kzQZyMSxjm5vzw6rQEyBltA/iOM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=cf1MSkKVSY/OCJo9th/8LlckbTbMMN2vX+Va6XC28KEHxn2wQ+7vhiRCkeE2tbUAX wz/3LWvvkxUbuF3Ng4gg4PTrMqIa3CVMUj2qRrpmRxWELO6bi8a1St8oGfQhk1mD2a AuSKk2U124EDipQwFM8kG5/Q/rC+2254pIn+A7Ky6SC1y//6BE+0NfMA6cbtsQPcJr B1oYQRjJXaRX6ppsqE20RM6u7zudzYsojUlRW5rLTAB0PaxuO4eUSnHtaMxCEe10MG 0BTo8rYazwWruk4gOc9g+dSLsDhEyBovIWdrvSMKLiGmzM0lKfW3zwpsZ+W1X1M/eU rhUAYLY4uTGrw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:7e19::646]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3240145ACB; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:36:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: jeffxu@chromium.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org, jannh@google.com, sroettger@google.com, willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, usama.anjum@collabora.com, rdunlap@infradead.org Cc: jeffxu@google.com, jorgelo@chromium.org, groeck@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pedro.falcato@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, deraadt@openbsd.org, Jeff Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] Introduce mseal() In-Reply-To: <20240122152905.2220849-1-jeffxu@chromium.org> References: <20240122152905.2220849-1-jeffxu@chromium.org> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:36:58 -0700 Message-ID: <87a5ong41h.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain jeffxu@chromium.org writes: > Although the initial version of this patch series is targeting the > Chrome browser as its first user, it became evident during upstream > discussions that we would also want to ensure that the patch set > eventually is a complete solution for memory sealing and compatible > with other use cases. The specific scenario currently in mind is > glibc's use case of loading and sealing ELF executables. To this end, > Stephen is working on a change to glibc to add sealing support to the > dynamic linker, which will seal all non-writable segments at startup. > Once this work is completed, all applications will be able to > automatically benefit from these new protections. Is this work posted somewhere? Having a second - and more generally useful - user for this API would do a lot to show that the design is, in fact, right and useful beyond the Chrome browser. Thanks, jon