Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
From: Florian Weimer <hidden>
Date: 2017-11-20 09:46:01
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-mm, lkml
On 11/20/2017 10:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 20-11-17 10:10:32, Florian Weimer wrote:quoted
On 11/20/2017 09:55 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:quoted
On Fri 17-11-17 08:30:48, Florian Weimer wrote:quoted
On 11/16/2017 11:18 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:quoted
+ if (flags & MAP_FIXED_SAFE) { + struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(mm, addr); + + if (vma && vma->vm_start <= addr) + return -ENOMEM; + }Could you pick a different error code which cannot also be caused by a an unrelated, possibly temporary condition? Maybe EBUSY or EEXIST?Hmm, none of those are described in the man page. I am usually very careful to not add new and potentially unexpected error codes but it isI think this is a bad idea. It leads to bizarre behavior, like open failing with EOVERFLOW with certain namespace configurations (which have nothing to do with file sizes).Ohh, I agree but breaking userspace is, you know, no-no. And an unexpected error codes can break things terribly.
On the glibc side, we see a lot of changes in error codes depending on kernel version, build and run-time configuration. It never occurred to me that you guys think the precise error code is part of the userspace ABI. Personally, I even assume that failure itself can disappear at any time (evidence: the f* functions which accept O_PATH in their non-*at variants). Thanks, Florian -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>