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
