Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-188121-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:32:26 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: jeffxu@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: <202405231628.BBBB9787F@keescook>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
 <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
 <202405141251.8E9580E@keescook>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202405141251.8E9580E@keescook>

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:52:13PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:46:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Oh, I thought I had already reviewed it. FWIW, please consider it:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> 
> > The code appears to be stable enough for a merge.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes please. :)

Is the plan still to land this for 6.10? With the testing it's had in
-next and Liam's review, I think we're good to go?

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook