On Tue, Feb 10 2026, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 02:10:45PM +0100, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 26 2026, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 02:03:29PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >> > @@ -67,11 +72,13 @@ struct memfd_luo_folio_ser {
>> >> > struct memfd_luo_ser {
>> >> > u64 pos;
>> >> > u64 size;
>> >> > + u64 seals:8;
>> >>
>> >> Kernel uABI defines seals as unsigned int, I think we can spare u32 for
>> >> them and reserve a u32 flags for other memfd flags (MFD_CLOEXEC,
>> >> MFD_HUGETLB etc).
>> >
>> > It is a bit worse than that, the "v2" version is only going to support
>> > some set of seals (probably the set defined in v6.19) and if there are
>> > new seals down the road then this needs a version bump.
>>
>> If we are running say kernel X, then X + 1 will always support a
>> superset of the seals, since the seals are UAPI. So it should be able to
>> handle all the seals that are given to it by X. This only becomes a
>> problem on rollbacks. Is this what you are worried about or am I missing
>> something?
>
> I think you need a check at some point only permitting seals that are
> defined right now.
>
> Eg some future v7.19 kernel has MEMFD_SEAL_XX it should not be allowed
> through luo until the API is bumped to v3
Makes sense. Will add.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
