[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171130065835.dbw4ajh5q5whikhf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 07:58:35 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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...
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.
> 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...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists