From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Fernandes Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Message-ID: <20181120183926.GA124387@google.com> References: <20181120052137.74317-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: LKML , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Jann Horn , Khalid Aziz , Linux API , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Linux-MM , marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, Matthew Wilcox , Mike Kravetz , Shuah Khan , Stephen Rothwell List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google) > wrote: > > > > A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week > > where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same > > behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by > > Andy [2]. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181111173650.GA256781@google.com/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@amacapital.net/ > > > > Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski > > Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd") > > What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in? It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history? thanks, - Joel