[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3b3129a-2626-a65e-59b0-68aada523723@prevas.dk>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 08:33:37 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
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 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So now you have to define what "dangerous" means.
>
>>> 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...
I also don't like the _SAFE name - MAP_FIXED in itself isn't unsafe [1],
but I do agree that having a way to avoid clobbering (parts of) an
existing mapping is quite useful. Since we're bikeshedding names, how
about MAP_FIXED_EXCL, in analogy with the O_ flag.
[1] I like the analogy between MAP_FIXED and dup2 made in
<stackoverflow.com/questions/28575893>.
Rasmus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists