[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87imkxxl5d.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 11:13:02 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap().
* Brian Geffon:
> When remapping an anonymous, private mapping, if MREMAP_DONTUNMAP is
> set, the source mapping will not be removed. Instead it will be
> cleared as if a brand new anonymous, private mapping had been created
> atomically as part of the mremap() call. If a userfaultfd was watching
> the source, it will continue to watch the new mapping. For a mapping
> that is shared or not anonymous, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP will cause the
> mremap() call to fail. MREMAP_DONTUNMAP implies that MREMAP_FIXED is
> also used. The final result is two equally sized VMAs where the
> destination contains the PTEs of the source.
What will be the protection flags of the source mapping? Will they
remain unchanged? Or PROT_NONE?
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists