[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+VupGmKEEHx-uNXw27Xvndu=0ObsBqMwQiaYPyMGD+vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:13:31 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>,
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>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> OK, this doesn't seem to lead to anywhere. The more this is discussed
> the more names we are getting. So you know what? I will resubmit and
> keep my original name. If somebody really hates it then feel free to
> nack the patch and push alternative and gain concensus on it.
>
> I will keep MAP_FIXED_SAFE because it is an alternative to MAP_FIXED so
> having that in the name is _useful_ for everybody familiar with
> MAP_FIXED already. And _SAFE suffix tells that the operation doesn't
> cause any silent memory corruptions or other unexpected side effects.
Looks like consensus is MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists