[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270539044.13812.65.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:30:44 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Arch specific mmap attributes (Was: mprotect pgprot handling
weirdness)
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 15:24 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> I guess you haven't catch my intention. I didn't say we have to remove
> PROT_SAO and VM_SAO.
> I mean mmap(PROT_SAO) is ok, it's only append new flag, not change exiting
> flags meanings. I'm only against mprotect(PROT_NONE) turn off PROT_SAO
> implicitely.
>
> IOW I recommend we use three syscall
> mmap() create new mappings
> mprotect() change a protection of mapping (as a name)
> mattribute(): (or similar name)
> change an attribute of mapping (e.g. PROT_SAO or
> another arch specific flags)
>
> I'm not against changing mm/protect.c for PROT_SAO.
Ok, I see. No biggie. The main deal remains how we want to do that
inside the kernel :-) I think the less horrible options here are
to either extend vm_flags to always be 64-bit, or add a separate
vm_map_attributes flag, and add the necessary bits and pieces to
prevent merge accross different attribute vma's.
The more I try to hack it into vm_page_prot, the more I hate that
option.
Cheers
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists