Re: [PATCH] mm/secretmem: disable under HIGHMEM

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 7/15/26 15:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 02:31:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 7/15/26 13:33, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>
>>> Right :)
>>> Supporting 32-bit without HIGHMEM is easy, so I don't think we should limit
>>> it to 64BIT at this point.
>>
>> You mean
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/secretmem.c b/mm/secretmem.c
>> index 4877c262cb1f6..d29865075b6ea 100644
>> --- a/mm/secretmem.c
>> +++ b/mm/secretmem.c
>> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static struct file *secretmem_file_create(unsigned long flags)
>>         if (IS_ERR(file))
>>                 goto err_free_inode;
>>
>> -       mapping_set_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping, GFP_HIGHUSER);
>> +       mapping_set_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping, GFP_USER);
>>         mapping_set_unevictable(inode->i_mapping);
>>
>>         inode->i_op = &secretmem_iops;
>>
>>
>> then?
> 
> No, I mean what Brendan's patch did:
> 
>  config SECRETMEM
>         default y
>         bool "Enable memfd_secret() system call" if EXPERT
> -       depends on ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP
> +       depends on ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP && !HIGHMEM
> 
> We can change gfp_mask as well for the sake of pedancy

Why not change the gfp mask only then?

-- 
Cheers,

David