lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:34:37 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 v2 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE

On Wed 13-12-17 04:25:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am afraid we can bikeshed this to death and there will still be
> > somebody finding yet another better name. Therefore I've decided to
> > stick with my original MAP_FIXED_SAFE. Why? Well, because it keeps the
> > MAP_FIXED prefix which should be recognized by developers and _SAFE
> > suffix should also be clear that all dangerous side effects of the old
> > MAP_FIXED are gone.
> 
> I liked basically every other name suggested more than MAP_FIXED_SAFE.
> "Safe against what?" was an important question.
> 
> MAP_AT_ADDR was the best suggestion I saw that wasn't one of mine.  Of
> my suggestions, I liked MAP_STATIC the best.

The question is whether you care enough to pursue this further yourself.
Because as I've said I do not want to spend another round discussing the
name. The flag is documented and I believe that the name has some merit.
Disagreeing on naming is the easiest pitfall to block otherwise useful
functionality from being merged. And I am pretty sure there will be
always somebody objecting...
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ