[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171122195318.GA29485@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:53:18 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] mm: introduce MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE, a mechanism to
safely define new mmap flags
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:52:37AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> > On 11/01/2017 04:36 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> >>
> >> The mmap(2) syscall suffers from the ABI anti-pattern of not validating
> >> unknown flags. However, proposals like MAP_SYNC need a mechanism to
> >> define new behavior that is known to fail on older kernels without the
> >> support. Define a new MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE flag pattern that is
> >> guaranteed to fail on all legacy mmap implementations.
> >
> > So I'm trying to make sense of this together with Michal's attempt for
> > MAP_FIXED_SAFE [1] where he has to introduce a completely new flag
> > instead of flag modifier exactly for the reason of not validating
> > unknown flags. And my conclusion is that because MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE
> > implies MAP_SHARED and excludes MAP_PRIVATE, MAP_FIXED_SAFE as a
> > modifier cannot build on top of this. Wouldn't thus it be really better
> > long-term to introduce mmap3 at this point? ...
>
> We have room to define MAP_PRIVATE_VALIDATE in MAP_TYPE on every arch
> except parisc. Can we steal an extra bit for MAP_TYPE from somewhere
> else on parisc?
It looks like 0x08 should work. But I don't have an HPUX machine around
to check that HP didn't use that bit for something else.
It'd probably help to cc the linux-parisc mailing list when asking
questions about PARISC, eh?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists