Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-188127-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 16:54:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.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: <20240523165418.242555ffc2372e59f88cabbf@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <202405231628.BBBB9787F@keescook>
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org>
	<20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
	<202405141251.8E9580E@keescook>
	<202405231628.BBBB9787F@keescook>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 23 May 2024 16:32:26 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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?

The testing and implementation review seem OK.  But from a higher-level
perspective Linus doesn't seem to be on board(?).  I was planning on
holding onto this, see if the discussion progresses across this -rc
cycle.