On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:

quoted

On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

Michal Hocko [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

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.

Yup, I really want this to land too. What do people think of Matthew
Wilcox's MAP_REQUIRED ? MAP_EXACT isn't exact, and dropping "FIXED"
out of the middle seems sensible to me.

MIchael, any suggestions with your API hat on?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

--
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>