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

[Dave Hansen]

On 2/24/25 10:55, Kees Cook wrote:
>> That logic is reasonable. But it's different from the _vast_ majority of
>> other flags.
>>
>> So what justifies VM_SEALED being so different? It's leading to pretty
>> objectively ugly code in this series.
> Note that VM_SEALED is the "is this VMA sealed?" bit itself. The define
> for "should we perform system mapping sealing?" is intentionally separate
> here, so that it can be Kconfig and per-arch toggled, etc.

Ahh, makes sense.

> As for the name, I have no strong opinion. Perhaps VM_SEALED_SYSTEM_MAPPING ?

Yeah, that'd work. Just something more consistent with the existing
naming and more compact. I think:

	VM_SEALED_SYS

would fit in nicely.