Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-179164-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 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,
 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
In-Reply-To: <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 14:59:57 -0600
Message-ID: <871q646rea.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> 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.

I hate to be obnoxious, but I *was* copied ... :)

Not taking a position on merging, but I have to ask: are we convinced at
this point that mseal() isn't a chrome-only system call?  Did we ever
see the glibc patches that were promised?

Thanks,

jon