From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B88517577; Thu, 23 May 2024 23:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716508460; cv=none; b=kt4zyU416ZHMjRLOaNNm4BBtjKQXmiXngZmv3VQkBaRgKXimdp0uvuJq25TetLBCMmabCda+fiMM31ypwRpUGhs5VU0re5aYUPCmyDmOu0IaV775wqxeCPInv9dwx2Eg659b4X938fpD+IavFWZK6LfURjSzhUkvnhEKGgOH8Zs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716508460; c=relaxed/simple; bh=azk6U8g/JFqvH7FTtMmTgCO4raAeREkG0pRfkcXX9ss=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=KFsrsXTaNkJ3DvoIXyPvClcMbMW0Sni8W30I1ozf8M0YOoZK0VUSfe4d+T2Ge5YotCAaskLAmGrQfs9W5Qw+1OuM8ToEWIJ4Nf5qpq1quyqFbC+HUENPib86tQ+VBVkzQUgiWAkACZZdqL3Pa07QaeRi24E9ZuqcxT5p9UyZUNk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=gHP8h8so; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="gHP8h8so" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46623C2BD10; Thu, 23 May 2024 23:54:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1716508459; bh=azk6U8g/JFqvH7FTtMmTgCO4raAeREkG0pRfkcXX9ss=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gHP8h8soJYQguI9OcU2OQzV6Jvnc+pHjBTbN/hmBwYznSLxlm54Dg9a0oex8FV7Zb mAPyhfJ++NLF27gXzuEIjnDIFfjeLnk61t0+EO6YMF+6HDwB898MpuzAbFp8vVzO7n KPm9ByZqUTM2WBboXJT9gtcKdy+tUuo0DGiJQO3U= Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:54:18 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Kees Cook Cc: jeffxu@chromium.org, jannh@google.com, sroettger@google.com, willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, usama.anjum@collabora.com, corbet@lwn.net, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, surenb@google.com, merimus@google.com, rdunlap@infradead.org, jeffxu@google.com, jorgelo@chromium.org, groeck@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, pedro.falcato@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, deraadt@openbsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal Message-Id: <20240523165418.242555ffc2372e59f88cabbf@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <202405231628.BBBB9787F@keescook> References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org> <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org> <202405141251.8E9580E@keescook> <202405231628.BBBB9787F@keescook> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:32:26 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:52:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:46:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:19 +0000 jeffxu@chromium.org wrote: > > > > > > > This patchset proposes a new mseal() syscall for the Linux kernel. > > > > > > I have not moved this into mm-stable for a 6.10 merge. Mainly because > > > of the total lack of Reviewed-by:s and Acked-by:s. > > > > Oh, I thought I had already reviewed it. FWIW, please consider it: > > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook > > > > > The code appears to be stable enough for a merge. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > It's awkward that we're in conference this week, but I ask people to > > > give consideration to the desirability of moving mseal() into mainline > > > sometime over the next week, please. > > > > Yes please. :) > > Is the plan still to land this for 6.10? With the testing it's had in > -next and Liam's review, I think we're good to go? The testing and implementation review seem OK. But from a higher-level perspective Linus doesn't seem to be on board(?). I was planning on holding onto this, see if the discussion progresses across this -rc cycle.