FAILED: patch "[PATCH] memfd: deny writeable mappings when implying SEAL_WRITE" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree

The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 3b041514cb6eae45869b020f743c14d983363222
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<[email protected]>' --in-reply-to '2026060409-tightness-iodize-c0fc@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 3b041514cb6eae45869b020f743c14d983363222 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Pratyush Yadav (Google)" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 15:39:20 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] memfd: deny writeable mappings when implying SEAL_WRITE

When SEAL_EXEC is added, SEAL_WRITE is implied to make W^X. But the implied seal is set after the check that makes sure the memfd can not have any writable mappings. This means one can use SEAL_EXEC to apply SEAL_WRITE while having writeable mappings.

This breaks the contract that SEAL_WRITE provides and can be used by an attacker to pass a memfd that appears to be write sealed but can still be modified arbitrarily.

Fix this by adding the implied seals before the call for mapping_deny_writable() is done.

index fb425f4e315f..abe13b291ddc 100644
@@ -283,6 +283,12 @@ int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * SEAL_EXEC implies SEAL_WRITE, making W^X from the start.
+	 */
+	if (seals & F_SEAL_EXEC && inode->i_mode & 0111)
+		seals |= F_SEAL_SHRINK|F_SEAL_GROW|F_SEAL_WRITE|F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE;
+
 	if ((seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) && !(*file_seals & F_SEAL_WRITE)) {
 		error = mapping_deny_writable(file->f_mapping);
 		if (error)

@@ -295,12 +301,6 @@ int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
 		}
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * SEAL_EXEC implies SEAL_WRITE, making W^X from the start.
-	 */
-	if (seals & F_SEAL_EXEC && inode->i_mode & 0111)
-		seals |= F_SEAL_SHRINK|F_SEAL_GROW|F_SEAL_WRITE|F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE;
-
 	*file_seals |= seals;
 	error = 0;
 

From: "Pratyush Yadav (Google)" <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 3b041514cb6eae45869b020f743c14d983363222 ]

When SEAL_EXEC is added, SEAL_WRITE is implied to make W^X. But the implied seal is set after the check that makes sure the memfd can not have any writable mappings. This means one can use SEAL_EXEC to apply SEAL_WRITE while having writeable mappings.

This breaks the contract that SEAL_WRITE provides and can be used by an attacker to pass a memfd that appears to be write sealed but can still be modified arbitrarily.

Fix this by adding the implied seals before the call for mapping_deny_writable() is done.

---
 mm/memfd.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

index 187265dc68f5e8..16dde40afd324b 100644
@@ -210,6 +210,12 @@ static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
 		goto unlock;
 	}
 
+	/*
+	 * SEAL_EXEC implies SEAL_WRITE, making W^X from the start.
+	 */
+	if (seals & F_SEAL_EXEC && inode->i_mode & 0111)
+		seals |= F_SEAL_SHRINK|F_SEAL_GROW|F_SEAL_WRITE|F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE;
+
 	if ((seals & F_SEAL_WRITE) && !(*file_seals & F_SEAL_WRITE)) {
 		error = mapping_deny_writable(file->f_mapping);
 		if (error)

@@ -222,12 +228,6 @@ static int memfd_add_seals(struct file *file, unsigned int seals)
 		}
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * SEAL_EXEC implys SEAL_WRITE, making W^X from the start.
-	 */
-	if (seals & F_SEAL_EXEC && inode->i_mode & 0111)
-		seals |= F_SEAL_SHRINK|F_SEAL_GROW|F_SEAL_WRITE|F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE;
-
 	*file_seals |= seals;
 	error = 0;
 

2.53.0