lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust
From
Date

> On Nov 20, 2018, at 1:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Joel,
>
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:39:26 -0800 Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 07:13:17AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:21 PM Joel Fernandes (Google)
>>> <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A better way to do F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal was discussed [1] last week
>>>> where we don't need to modify core VFS structures to get the same
>>>> behavior of the seal. This solves several side-effects pointed out by
>>>> Andy [2].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181111173650.GA256781@google.com/
>>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69CE06CC-E47C-4992-848A-66EB23EE6C74@amacapital.net/
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>>>> Fixes: 5e653c2923fd ("mm: Add an F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal to memfd")
>>>
>>> What tree is that commit in? Can we not just fold this in?
>>
>> It is in linux-next. Could we keep both commits so we have the history?
>
> Well, its in Andrew's mmotm, so its up to him.
>
>

Unless mmotm is more magical than I think, the commit hash in your fixed tag is already nonsense. mmotm gets rebased all the time, and is only barely a git tree.
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-20 21:34    [W:0.050 / U:1.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site