On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:30:11AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote:
Hi Lorenzo
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:14 AM Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 07:45:56AM GMT, Jeff Xu wrote:
HI Andrew
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 3:55 PM jeffxu@chromium.org wrote:
From: Jeff Xu jeffxu@chromium.org
Add more testcases and increase test coverage, e.g. add get_vma_size to check VMA size and prot bits.
This commit message is ridiculously short for such a massive change, even for test code.
Could you please pull the self-test part of this patch series to mm-unstable ? It will help to prevent regression.
No, please don't.
This needs review.
These tests establish a precedent as to how mseal should behave, this is something that needs community review, not to just be taken.
There's already been a great deal of confusion/contentious discussion around mseal() and its implementation.
Pushing in ~800 lines of test code asserting how mseal() should behave without review isn't helping things.
Also, this is a really unusual way to send a series - why is this a 2/2 in reply to the 1/2 and no cover letter? Why is this change totally unrelated to the other patch?
Can you send this as a separate patch, preferably as an RFC so we can ensure that we all agree on how mseal() should behave?
Sorry to be contentious here, but I think we need to find a more constructive, collaborative way forward with mseal() and to act with a little more caution, given the problems that the original series has caused I'd think this is in the best interests of all.
Thanks for understanding!
There have been two bugs I found recently on mseal. One during V2 of in-loop change and the other mentioned in 1/2 of this patch.
Jeff you've ignored pretty much everything I've said here. This is not collaboration. And you keep doing this + causing disharmony among other devleopers. It's getting tiresome, and you need to do better.
If you insist on review for this patch as it stands - NACK.
The commit message is ludicriously short, you've not sent the series correctly, and you are ignoring feedback.
Resend this with a substantially improved commit message and ideally some actual comments in your tests rather than a giant lump of code which constitutes 'how Jeff feels mseal() should work'.
Then when people give feedback - listen.