From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6411960841474630789==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Josh Triplett To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [lkp] [+1158 bytes kernel size regression] [i386-tinyconfig] [22dd199a72] mm: introduce secretmemfd system call to create "secret" memory areas Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 20:57:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20200723035754.GA180721@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20200716073259.GD1166045@linux.ibm.com> List-Id: --===============6411960841474630789== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:32:59AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > Hi, > = > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 01:32:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:06:18AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > commit: 22dd199a7221932b194badb999181ca3fa2e62e2 (mm: introduce secre= tmemfd system call to create "secret" memory areas) > = > > Unrelated to the size, I'm wondering: why have this as a separate > > syscall, rather than just a flag to memfd_create? > = > Kirill asked the same question but the other way around: > = > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200713105812.dnwtdhsuyj3xbh4f(a)box/ > = > I feel we are going to bikesched about it for a while :) > = > More seruously, the commonality with memfd_create end at the fact that > this a file descriptor for memory. > = > Having this as separate syscall will be less confusing to the users, and > I beleive, more flexible for future changes. Fair enough. I'm not going to express a further opinion on the bikeshed paint color. That said, please by all means make sure that "make tinyconfig" doesn't get any bigger with this patch (which *should* be the case as long as it's a Kconfig option, and no new code gets added outside the Kconfig option). - Josh --===============6411960841474630789==--