[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXgBENat=5=7EuU-ttQ-YSXT+ifjLGc=hpJ=unRgSsndw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:13:17 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.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>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust
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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists