Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-179017-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 10:46:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: jeffxu@chromium.org
Cc: keescook@chromium.org, jannh@google.com, sroettger@google.com,
 willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
 torvalds@linux-foundation.org, usama.anjum@collabora.com, corbet@lwn.net,
 Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, surenb@google.com, merimus@google.com,
 rdunlap@infradead.org, jeffxu@google.com, jorgelo@chromium.org,
 groeck@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 pedro.falcato@gmail.com, dave.hansen@intel.com,
 linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, deraadt@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal
Message-Id: <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:19 +0000 jeffxu@chromium.org wrote:

> This patchset proposes a new mseal() syscall for the Linux kernel.

I have not moved this into mm-stable for a 6.10 merge.  Mainly because
of the total lack of Reviewed-by:s and Acked-by:s.

The code appears to be stable enough for a merge.

It's awkward that we're in conference this week, but I ask people to
give consideration to the desirability of moving mseal() into mainline
sometime over the next week, please.