Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181120052137.74317-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181120052137.74317-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:13:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrXgBENat=5=7EuU-ttQ-YSXT+ifjLGc=hpJ=unRgSsndw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] mm/memfd: make F_SEAL_FUTURE_WRITE seal more robust
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?