On 01/27/2014 05:53 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:37 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Anyway, I just wanted to submit this sketched out idea as food for >> thought to see if there was any objection or interest (I've got a draft >> patch I'll send out once I get a chance to test it). So let me know if >> you have any feedback or comments. > The reason "kdbus-memfd" exists is primarily the sealing. [snip] > It would be nice if we can generalize the whole memfd logic, but the > shmem allocation facility alone, without the sealing function cannot > replace kdbus-memfd. Yes. Quite understood. And I too hope to discuss how the sealing feature could be generalized when the code is submitted for review. I just figured I'd start here, so when that time comes we have a sketch for what the rest of the parts that would be needed are. > We would need secure sealing right from the start for the kdbus use > case; other than that, there are no specific requirements from the > kdbus side. Thanks for the clarifications! -john -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>