[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171129155009.i5xai77rrapsyrd2@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:50:09 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc: 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@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 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>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
On Wed 29-11-17 16:13:53, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 2017-11-29 15:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >The flag is introduced as a completely
> > new one rather than a MAP_FIXED extension because of the backward
> > compatibility. We really want a never-clobber semantic even on older
> > kernels which do not recognize the flag. Unfortunately mmap sucks wrt.
> > flags evaluation because we do not EINVAL on unknown flags. On those
> > kernels we would simply use the traditional hint based semantic so the
> > caller can still get a different address (which sucks) but at least not
> > silently corrupt an existing mapping. I do not see a good way around
> > that.
>
> I think it would be nice if this rationale was in the 1/2 changelog,
> along with the hint about what userspace that wants to be compatible
> with old kernels will have to do (namely, check that it got what it
> requested) - which I see you did put in the man page.
OK, I've added there.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists