From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 85C601DF25C for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2026 12:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769342617; cv=none; b=gx69Kj2Ie2T8lHs+6TEzi9z7WyTpqMPMggnRF48+Zn3E+q8CEhC8DjvKcbcyFJOEh1oC0tCr/8zLLT8kCqFSgmaROby4hVfkbYqN7aioaYz1/bUn6K87w31yTUCOguipKtHnh0cdZ/jHp7kNJs6c8sbEnsath128TxbFDsWuNUQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769342617; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VgoxmZlbv0mSVt43gxyu4AMX9q5s+p+eQWF9sR0Ddes=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XAOOyCnHQm4lbaSGt3VjkqOleql9I7hBu3g2Qq5CVFBsyzSbwNp9UIF/MkjcllBaJWw7SHloHIKJD6ZzLKjCHdk+XGOU/GKX39eifmsH+wsW/NIG3oO7gP+Ufx2ceBrR89dfVjtEV6U5A1Zc0uloifenx7ro8WWrD25hu7db3/M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=X4kzUMsF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="X4kzUMsF" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4209AC4CEF1; Sun, 25 Jan 2026 12:03:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769342617; bh=VgoxmZlbv0mSVt43gxyu4AMX9q5s+p+eQWF9sR0Ddes=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=X4kzUMsFpCh/ex88C06+BH3I+aBZEdkYLS8o7XjZ7xGsN0h4N0RX6P76iOt2kl2vI d0qIEYPI+bPyahOl9Y5rMTOzV4tk4scT80WhLCzBvK0IAytDzkk3piase1AAB3Q7YY NSqGHdrlU6VItCS5c+sQwlkX2UCaAm6WDS4t8do5WQHuK1VDCr+cOVwP2ZgesTR+jf QXWvdXxiKx+I6tlaqA2y8o9hmK5xn4BuHND6zQC/5JDluqBaffrJ4CPDctaSYm8e9t tvl8SnaPQwhURaMNc6uD1DKZ+Ww3uY8qP8mpYksXUfxX/55ZiB9d8VR6hNxIQdLdMA 9Jy3wZK1W56oQ== Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 14:03:29 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Pratyush Yadav Cc: Alexander Graf , Pasha Tatashin , Hugh Dickins , Baolin Wang , Andrew Morton , Jason Gunthorpe , Samiullah Khawaja , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: memfd_luo: preserve file seals Message-ID: References: <20260123095854.535058-1-pratyush@kernel.org> <20260123095854.535058-3-pratyush@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260123095854.535058-3-pratyush@kernel.org> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:58:51AM +0100, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > From: "Pratyush Yadav (Google)" > > File seals are used on memfd for making shared memory communication with > untrusted peers safer and simpler. Seals provide a guarantee that > certain operations won't be allowed on the file such as writes or > truncations. Maintaining these guarantees across a live update will help > keeping such use cases secure. > > These guarantees will also be needed for IOMMUFD preservation with LUO. > Normally when IOMMUFD maps a memfd, it pins all its pages to make sure > any truncation operations on the memfd don't lead to IOMMUFD using freed > memory. This doesn't work with LUO since the preserved memfd might have > completely different pages after a live update, and mapping them back to > the IOMMUFD will cause all sorts of problems. Using and preserving the > seals allows IOMMUFD preservation logic to trust the memfd. > > Preserve the seals by introducing a new 8-bit-wide bitfield. There are > currently only 6 possible seals but 2 extra bits are used to provide > room for future expansion. Since the seals are UAPI, it is safe to use > them directly in the ABI. > > Back the 8-bit field with a u64, leaving 56 unused bits. This is done to > keep the struct nice and aligned. The unused bits can be used to add new > flags later, potentially without even needing to bump the version > number. > > Since the serialization structure is changed, bump the version number to > "memfd-v2". > > Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav (Google) > --- > include/linux/kho/abi/memfd.h | 9 ++++++++- > mm/memfd_luo.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/kho/abi/memfd.h b/include/linux/kho/abi/memfd.h > index 68cb6303b846..bd549c81f1d2 100644 > --- a/include/linux/kho/abi/memfd.h > +++ b/include/linux/kho/abi/memfd.h > @@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ struct memfd_luo_folio_ser { > * struct memfd_luo_ser - Main serialization structure for a memfd. > * @pos: The file's current position (f_pos). > * @size: The total size of the file in bytes (i_size). > + * @seals: The seals present on the memfd. The seals are UAPI so it is safe > + * to directly use them in the ABI. Note: currently there are 6 > + * seals possible but this field is 8 bits to leave room for future > + * expansion. > + * @__reserved: Reserved bits. May be used later to add more flags. > * @nr_folios: Number of folios in the folios array. > * @folios: KHO vmalloc descriptor pointing to the array of > * struct memfd_luo_folio_ser. > @@ -67,11 +72,13 @@ struct memfd_luo_folio_ser { > struct memfd_luo_ser { > u64 pos; > u64 size; > + u64 seals:8; Kernel uABI defines seals as unsigned int, I think we can spare u32 for them and reserve a u32 flags for other memfd flags (MFD_CLOEXEC, MFD_HUGETLB etc). > + u64 __reserved:56; > u64 nr_folios; > struct kho_vmalloc folios; > } __packed; > > /* The compatibility string for memfd file handler */ > -#define MEMFD_LUO_FH_COMPATIBLE "memfd-v1" > +#define MEMFD_LUO_FH_COMPATIBLE "memfd-v2" > > #endif /* _LINUX_KHO_ABI_MEMFD_H */ > diff --git a/mm/memfd_luo.c b/mm/memfd_luo.c > index a34fccc23b6a..eb68e0b5457f 100644 > --- a/mm/memfd_luo.c > +++ b/mm/memfd_luo.c > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > + > #include "internal.h" > > static int memfd_luo_preserve_folios(struct file *file, > @@ -222,7 +224,7 @@ static int memfd_luo_preserve(struct liveupdate_file_op_args *args) > struct memfd_luo_folio_ser *folios_ser; > struct memfd_luo_ser *ser; > u64 nr_folios; > - int err = 0; > + int err = 0, seals; > > inode_lock(inode); > shmem_freeze(inode, true); > @@ -234,8 +236,15 @@ static int memfd_luo_preserve(struct liveupdate_file_op_args *args) > goto err_unlock; > } > > + seals = memfd_get_seals(args->file); > + if (seals < 0) { > + err = seals; > + goto err_free_ser; > + } > + > ser->pos = args->file->f_pos; > ser->size = i_size_read(inode); > + ser->seals = seals; > > err = memfd_luo_preserve_folios(args->file, &ser->folios, > &folios_ser, &nr_folios); > @@ -444,13 +453,23 @@ static int memfd_luo_retrieve(struct liveupdate_file_op_args *args) > if (!ser) > return -EINVAL; > > - file = memfd_alloc_file("", 0); > + /* > + * The seals are preserved. Allow sealing here so they can be added > + * later. > + */ > + file = memfd_alloc_file("", MFD_ALLOW_SEALING); I think we should select flags passed to memfd_alloc_file() based on ser->seals (and later based on ser->seals and ser->flags). > if (IS_ERR(file)) { > pr_err("failed to setup file: %pe\n", file); > err = PTR_ERR(file); > goto free_ser; > } > > + err = memfd_add_seals(file, ser->seals); I'm not sure using MFD_ALLOW_SEALING is enough if there was F_SEAL_EXEC in seals. > + if (err) { > + pr_err("failed to add seals: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(err)); > + goto put_file; > + } > + > vfs_setpos(file, ser->pos, MAX_LFS_FILESIZE); > file->f_inode->i_size = ser->size; > > -- > 2.52.0.457.g6b5491de43-goog > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.