lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 0/4] Introduce mseal
Date
> What I'm more concerned about is what happens if you call mseal() on a
> range and it can mseal a portion. Like, what happens to the first vma
> in your test_seal_unmapped_middle case? I see it returns an error, but
> is the first VMA mseal()'ed? (no it's not, but test that)

That is correct, Liam.

Unix system calls must be atomic.

They either return an error, and that is a promise they made no changes.

Or they do the work required, and then return success.

In OpenBSD, all mimmutable() aspects were carefully studied to gaurantee
this behaviour.

I am not an expert in the Linux kernel to make the assessment; someone
who is qualified must make that assessment. Fuzzing with tests is a good
way to judge it simpler.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 14:46    [W:0.078 / U:1.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site