Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-188843-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240415163527.626541-1-jeffxu@chromium.org> <20240514104646.e6af4292f19b834777ec1e32@linux-foundation.org>
 <202405141251.8E9580E@keescook> <202405231628.BBBB9787F@keescook> <20240523165418.242555ffc2372e59f88cabbf@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240523165418.242555ffc2372e59f88cabbf@linux-foundation.org>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 08:19:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiKNsQck3eGc37Da7hAKDNL6S9viwV8ir8BFTu7dsig6g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/5] Introduce mseal
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, jeffxu@chromium.org, jannh@google.com, 
	sroettger@google.com, willy@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, 23 May 2024 at 16:54, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The testing and implementation review seem OK.  But from a higher-level
> perspective Linus doesn't seem to be on board(?).

Oh, I'm fine with mseal.

I wasn't fine with the insane "m*() system calls should be atomic"
discussion where Theo was just making shit up. I honestly don't think
mseal() needs it either.

               Linus