Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Joel,

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpuw2PwmhOfE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature