On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:25:54AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 9:23 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 09:19:55AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 9:12 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 08:27:29AM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 10:54 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 10:17:48PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the process to backport Pedro's recent mseal fixes to 6.10 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please read: > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html > > > > > > for how all of this works :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Specifically those 5 commits: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 67203f3f2a63d429272f0c80451e5fcc469fdb46 > > > > > > > selftests/mm: add mseal test for no-discard madvise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4d1b3416659be70a2251b494e85e25978de06519 > > > > > > > mm: move can_modify_vma to mm/vma.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4a2dd02b09160ee43f96c759fafa7b56dfc33816 > > > > > > > mm/mprotect: replace can_modify_mm with can_modify_vma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 23c57d1fa2b9530e38f7964b4e457fed5a7a0ae8 > > > > > > > mseal: replace can_modify_mm_madv with a vma variant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > f28bdd1b17ec187eaa34845814afaaff99832762 > > > > > > > selftests/mm: add more mseal traversal tests > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There will be merge conflicts, I can backport them to 5.10 and test > > > > > > > to help the backporting process. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5.10 or 6.10? > > > > > > > > > > > 6.10. > > > > > > > > > > > And why 6.10? If you look at the front page of kernel.org you will see > > > > > > that 6.10 is now end-of-life, so why does that kernel matter to you > > > > > > anymore? > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I didn't know that. Less work is nice :-) > > > > > > > > So, now that you don't care about 6.10.y, what about 6.11.y? Are any of > > > > these actually bugfixes that people need? > > > > > > > Oh, yes. It would be great to backport those 5 mentioned to 6.11.y. > > > > Why, are they bugfixes? > > > Yes. For performance, there are 5% impact with mprotect/madvise. That's not a bugfix, but we do sometimes take performance improvements if it's really needed and the maintainer is willing to do the backport for us. > > > I don't know what will be the lifetime of 6.11.y, but keeping mseal's > > > semantics consistent across releases is important. > > > > Stable kernels last until the next release happens, like has been > > happening for 15+ years now, nothing new here :) > > > Does it mean that with 6.12, 6.11.y will be EOL soon ? Yes. > say in the next few months? Yes. > (Sorry that I didn't know much about linux release cycle. ) It's well documented, please see the Documentation/process/2.Process.rst file for details. If you have questions after that, please let us know. thanks, greg k-h
