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

[Joel Fernandes]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:33:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > 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.

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 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.

- Joel