From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 23B261DFD1; Tue, 14 May 2024 21:00:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715720406; cv=none; b=AwSO/XJQ2lhgbNm4kIUHbLn9lL8ElPYyVtsdhROMtSGNvhq69CMkITMxTR7cEy6hVqkv+8t8IIX6/13nzCTp1pnWCJHXqR/JSUastmr6IWepsZFU+LA9gVwEXnyAvvTR7f11V40ADMRlHfOZ5nzWAREoUJkif995+tvCV/OC1xw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715720406; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LzIjbm8EmhE8nz2vY1r+uwzY38OtTNn3Qux8G3lPnvs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=myO82dOphTUZdOfS4QyPOBBaP8ZUQtu0bWBqyjcYq50lyVKzNxI6BIR4cWXe5IC+e5f8NQ36xI567T2HroZZuQ385/cYFX56qiLYWtZKT3Gu1rgO8vVQmPSAbhTupLKNH/iQ23sPLaDVGSwAV7DgbnOX1zPButt+fPPGUj+249M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=p+vex417; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="p+vex417" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net E2D8847C39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1715720398; bh=Pm5GQXvf/+T4Nt95ku2E3tncArTWJsHx/sY7VG5ZKk4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=p+vex417G255x4AnYioFbmLzZwUfVWPjslsURVv7taRXwTjPhbNIKXelbcHcM+MHc 9akB/ulGNSIlMfk+xZynwa4QJTvWehWuSw/lqxXkjgsP0WkNsU+EWxPcEGce1kNczs JZr3Yz34r/86v6FF7E+cuyjKxAOirYHnxfD1jTeXW89Cq7pQ1IxE1q4TGx3bjXIvq3 NcIc/t0VZrwDWBVuqDDWmj3ivv6e0wGfmQtr/1z0g8aTMuRxG+J3qIlqBKFZGSC7E5 UPvCg5LKwNVTTskGHeK5DQ5Vd6oVG1O6+evGJQxmiUPcCgGjutu9qxI9sHp9ixOJlU aZTRYcQ6cJ96g== Received: from localhost (mdns.lwn.net [45.79.72.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2D8847C39; Tue, 14 May 2024 20:59:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Andrew Morton , jeffxu@chromium.org Cc: keescook@chromium.org, jannh@google.com, sroettger@google.com, willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, usama.anjum@collabora.com, 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 In-Reply-To: <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org> References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org> <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 14:59:57 -0600 Message-ID: <871q646rea.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Andrew Morton writes: > 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. > > The code appears to be stable enough for a merge. > > 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. I hate to be obnoxious, but I *was* copied ... :) Not taking a position on merging, but I have to ask: are we convinced at this point that mseal() isn't a chrome-only system call? Did we ever see the glibc patches that were promised? Thanks, jon