[PATCH] mm: move the check of READ_IMPLIES_EXEC out of do_mmap()

[Shu Han]

> You have sent this non-RFC intentionally conflicting with [0] to provide
> 'alternatives' that is not what a [PATCH] submission is.
>
> In any case, speculative changes like this should ABSOLUTELY be sent RFC,
> and sending things that are merge conflicts as ordinary patches is actually
> bordering on being a little rude!
>
> I'm sure it's unintentional :) but for the sake of us being able to work
> with these properly you should just send one as RFC and ask whether it'd be
> appropriate to send an alternative, and just allude to it in the one you do
> send.
>
> [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240925081628.408-1-ebpqwerty472123@gmail.com/

I am very sorry that I sent the wrong subject which should add "RFC",
due to lack of experience.

> It's a bit weird to send 'alternatives' - you should by now have a good
> sense of which ought to work, if not perhaps more research is required on
> your part?

I think both solutions can work, and the preliminary discussion is on
the mail list for [1]
(as this issue is related to security before it was fixed, the
discussion is on security at kernel.org).
The choice depends only on taste.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240919080905.4506-2-paul@paul-moore.com/ [1]