[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42922.1539970322@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:32:02 -0400
From: valdis.kletnieks@...edu
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
jreck@...gle.com, john.stultz@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hch@...radead.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, dancol@...gle.com,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, marcandre.lureau@...hat.com,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, minchan@...nel.org,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 23:59:07 -0700, "Joel Fernandes (Google)" said:
> This usecase cannot be implemented with the existing F_SEAL_WRITE seal.
> To support the usecase, this patch adds a new F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal
> which prevents any future mmap and write syscalls from succeeding while
> keeping the existing mmap active. The following program shows the seal
> working in action:
What is supposed to happen if some other process has an already existing R/W
mmap of the region? (For that matter, the test program doesn't seem to
actually test that the existing mmap region remains writable?)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists