[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206090803.GG16386@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:08:03 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
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 Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> 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.
I really give up on the name discussion. I will take whatever the
majority comes up with. I just do not want this (useful) funtionality
get bikeched to death.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists