Re: [nacked] memfd-mfd_noexec_seal-should-not-imply-mfd_allow_sealing.patch removed from -mm tree

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

 



2024. június 15., szombat 1:52 keltezéssel, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> írta:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:00:02 +0000 Barnabás Pőcze pobrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > 2024. június 14., péntek 20:27 keltezéssel, Andrew Morton akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx írta:
> > 
> > > The quilt patch titled
> > > Subject: memfd: `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should not imply `MFD_ALLOW_SEALING`
> > > has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
> > > memfd-mfd_noexec_seal-should-not-imply-mfd_allow_sealing.patch
> > > 
> > > This patch was dropped because it was nacked
> > 
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > do I gather it correctly that this is the final decision, and there is not much
> > willingness to try to remove this quirk of the `memfd_create()`? As far as I can tell,
> > the change was in linux-next for some time, did that uncover any problems? (If so,
> > I haven't been notified.)
> > 
> > Anyways, I believe I have laid out my arguments already, so I won't repeat them here,
> > and if this is final, then I will stop wasting everyone's time with further emails. :-)
> 
> 
> We do appear to be stuck.
> 
> Please feel free to pursue this. Reissue the patch with an updated
> changelog which addresses the various issues which have been raised
> thus far and let's reexamine.

Done: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240630184912.37335-1-pobrn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I believe the commit message now adequately captures my thinking regarding
backwards compatibility; additionally I have carried out a smoke test by
booting into an Arch Linux system with the patch.


Regards,
Barnabás Pőcze





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux