linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:02:49 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        marcandre.lureau@...hat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust


> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Joel,
>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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)
>>>>> <joel@...lfernandes.org> 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 <luto@...nel.org>
>>>>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed
>> tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only
>> barely a git tree.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far to call it nonsense. It was a working patch, it just did
> things differently. Your help with improving the patch is much appreciated.

I’m not saying the patch is nonsense — I’m saying the *hash* may be nonsense. akpm uses a bunch of .patch files and all kinds of crazy scripts, and the mmotm.git tree is not stable at all.

> 
> I am Ok with whatever Andrew wants to do, if it is better to squash it with
> the original, then I can do that and send another patch.
> 
> 

From experience, Andrew will food in fixups on request :)