On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:32:07 -0700 Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > By fixing the document, the usage of MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL shall be clear. > Was the previous patch (which changed ABI) removed from unstable ? > > I pulled the mm-unstable this morning, it seems that patch is still here. > I'm not sure about the process of reverting it, hence asking. > > c1e11be9abae86ebe5cecc42abc412f61ae563c6 > memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING` > I'm not completely sure what you're asking here. Please try not to use terms like "the previous patch". There are a lot of patches! I *think* you're saying that the patch "mm/memfd: add documentation for MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL MFD_EXEC" (and its two fixups) are tied to the patch "memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`". If so then this escaped me and I shall rearrange the grouping to be more logical. The base patch "memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`" is in mm-unstable but I need to revisit the discussion to see whether we should be proceeding with it. Any guidance you can offer here will be helpful. Or I've totally misunderstood everything. Please explain the entire situation more thoroughly.
