Re: [PATCH v1] memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed May 22 2024 - 19:23:34 EST


On Wed, 15 May 2024 23:11:12 -0700 Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:15 PM Barnabás Pőcze <pobrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > `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`.
> >
> Ya, I agree that there should be documentation, such as a man page. I will
> work on that.
>
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221202013404.163143-3-jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> ...
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx>

It's a change to a userspace API, yes? Please let's have a detailed
description of why this is OK. Why it won't affect any existing users.

Also, please let's give consideration to a -stable backport so that all
kernel versions will eventually behave in the same manner.