[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLa=b2HhjWXXTQunaZuz11qUhm5aNXHpS26jVqb=G-gfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:25:36 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
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>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> The first patch introduced MAP_FIXED_SAFE which enforces the given
> address but unlike MAP_FIXED it fails with ENOMEM if the given range
> conflicts with an existing one. The flag is introduced as a completely
I still think this name should be better. "SAFE" doesn't say what it's
safe from...
MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE
MAP_FIXED_ONCE
MAP_FIXED_FRESH
?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists