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

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

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.