Signed-off-by: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
---
 man2/memfd_create.2 | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/man2/memfd_create.2 b/man2/memfd_create.2
index 89e9c4136..2698222ae 100644
--- a/man2/memfd_create.2
+++ b/man2/memfd_create.2
@@ -101,6 +101,19 @@ meaning that no other seals can be set on the file.
 .\" FIXME Why is the MFD_ALLOW_SEALING behavior not simply the default?
 .\" Is it worth adding some text explaining this?
 .TP
+.BR MFD_INACCESSIBLE
+Disallow userspace access through ordinary MMU accesses via
+.BR read (2),
+.BR write (2)
+and
+.BR mmap (2).
+The file size cannot be changed once initialized.
+This flag cannot coexist with
+.B MFD_ALLOW_SEALING
+and when this flag is set, the initial set of seals will be
+.B F_SEAL_SEAL,
+meaning that no other seals can be set on the file.
+.TP
 .BR MFD_HUGETLB " (since Linux 4.14)"
 .\" commit 749df87bd7bee5a79cef073f5d032ddb2b211de8
 The anonymous file will be created in the hugetlbfs filesystem using
-- 
2.17.1

This patch does not belong in this series.  It's not a patch to the
kernel.  This is a kernel series.

It would be much more appropriate to put a link to a separately posted
manpage patch in the cover letter.

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:40:32AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> This patch does not belong in this series.  It's not a patch to the
> kernel.  This is a kernel series.

You are right.

> 
> It would be much more appropriate to put a link to a separately posted
> manpage patch in the cover letter.

Thanks for suggesion.

Chao