://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230714114753.170814-1-da...@readahead.eu/
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze
---
* v3:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240611231409.3899809-1-jef...@chromium.org/
* v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240524033933.135049-1-jef...@g
D_ALLOW_SEALING` is needed to enable sealing except that XYZ"
is unintuitive and confusing for a non-significant amount of people.
In conclusion, I think it would be unfortunate if the inconsistency was not
fixed and
the problem was considered "solved" by a passing mention in the d
2024. május 30., csütörtök 0:24 keltezéssel, Jeff Xu írta:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 2:46 PM Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > 2024. május 29., szerda 23:30 keltezéssel, Jeff Xu írta:
> >
> > > Hi David and Barnabás
> > &g
mfd_create does not specify MFD_EXEC or
> > > MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL, and the addition of MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL enables the MFD
> > > to be sealable. This means, any application that does not desire this
> > > behavior will be unable to utilize vm.memfd_noexec = 1 or 2 to
> &g
ould have sent in v2, maybe you can salvage
some of it.
Regards,
Barnabás Pőcze
>
> Thanks
> -Jeff
>
> -
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 12:45 PM Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 May 2024 19:32:35 -0700 Jeff Xu wrote:
> >
> > > &
Hi
2024. május 23., csütörtök 1:23 keltezéssel, Andrew Morton
írta:
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 23:11:12 -0700 Jeff Xu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:15 PM Barnabás Pőcze
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > `MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL` should remove the executable bits an
: add MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL and MFD_EXEC")
Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze
---
Or did I miss the explanation as to why MFD_NOEXEC_SEAL should
imply MFD_ALLOW_SEALING? If so, please direct me to it and
sorry for the noise.
---
mm/memfd.c | 9 -
tools/testing/selft
