lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:08:19 -0800 From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com> CC: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE On 12/06/2017 04:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote: >> On Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>> On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>> It is safe in a sense it doesn't perform any address space dangerous >>>>> operations. mmap is _inherently_ about the address space so the context >>>>> should be kind of clear. >>>> >>>> So now you have to define what "dangerous" means. >>>> >>>>>> MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE >>>>>> MAP_FIXED_ONCE >>>>>> MAP_FIXED_FRESH >>>>> >>>>> Well, I can open a poll for the best name, but none of those you are >>>>> proposing sound much better to me. Yeah, naming sucks... >>> >>> I also don't like the _SAFE name - MAP_FIXED in itself isn't unsafe [1], >>> but I do agree that having a way to avoid clobbering (parts of) an >>> existing mapping is quite useful. Since we're bikeshedding names, how >>> about MAP_FIXED_EXCL, in analogy with the O_ flag. >> >> I really give up on the name discussion. I will take whatever the >> majority comes up with. I just do not want this (useful) funtionality >> get bikeched to death. > > Yup, I really want this to land too. What do people think of Matthew > Wilcox's MAP_REQUIRED ? MAP_EXACT isn't exact, and dropping "FIXED" > out of the middle seems sensible to me. +1, MAP_REQUIRED does sound like the best one so far, yes. Sorry if I contributed to any excessive bikeshedding. :) thanks, john h > > MIchael, any suggestions with your API hat on? > > -Kees >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists