Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] selftests/mm: mseal_test add more tests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Matthew

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 12:58 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can
> > > > > ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave?
> > > > >
> > It is not an RFC because it doesn't change any semanic to mseal. The
> > updated test will pass on linux main as well as 6.10. The increased
> > coverage will help to prevent future regression, i.e. during
> > refactoring.
>
> You seem to not understand that there is disagreement on the semantics
> of mseal().  I mean, ther's been a lot of arguing about that over the
> last week.  There's understanable reluctance to accept a large pile of
> tests saying "this just ensures that mseal behaves the way I think it
> should", when there is substantial disagreement that the way you think
> it should behave is in fact the way it should behave.  Be prepared to
> argue for each semantic that you think it should have.
>
If this is about in-loop discussion, this patch also passes the latest
mm-unstable branch which has in-loop change (pending Liam's fix on
mmap). The increased test coverage also helps to ensure the in-loop
change's correctness on sealing.

I'm not aware there are other semantic changes on mseal, we can
continue this discussion on V2 patch, if necessary.

Thanks
-Jeff





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux