On Sun, 2021-02-14 at 10:58 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: [...] > > And here we come to the question "what are the differences that > > justify a new system call?" and the answer to this is very > > subjective. And as such we can continue bikeshedding forever. > > I think this fits into the existing memfd_create() syscall just fine, > and I heard no compelling argument why it shouldn‘t. That‘s all I can > say. OK, so let's review history. In the first two incarnations of the patch, it was an extension of memfd_create(). The specific objection by Kirill Shutemov was that it doesn't share any code in common with memfd and so should be a separate system call: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/20200713105812.dnwtdhsuyj3xbh4f@box/ The other objection raised offlist is that if we do use memfd_create, then we have to add all the secret memory flags as an additional ioctl, whereas they can be specified on open if we do a separate system call. The container people violently objected to the ioctl because it can't be properly analysed by seccomp and much preferred the syscall version. Since we're dumping the uncached variant, the ioctl problem disappears but so does the possibility of ever adding it back if we take on the container peoples' objection. This argues for a separate syscall because we can add additional features and extend the API with flags without causing anti-ioctl riots. James
