lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v38 10/24] mm: Add vm_ops->mprotect()
From
Date
On 9/24/20 4:05 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The problem is that enforcing permissions via mprotect() needs to be done
> unconditionally, otherwise we end up with weird behavior where the existence
> of an LSM will change what is/isn't allowed, even if the LSM(s) has no SGX
> policy whatsover.

Could we make this a bit less abstract, please?

Could someone point to code or another examples that demonstrates how
the mere existence of an LSM will change what is/isn't allowed?

I can't seem to wrap my head around it as-is.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-25 01:10    [W:0.316 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site