Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] Remove in-tree usage of MAP_DENYWRITE
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2021-08-14 01:02:53
Also in:
linux-api, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2021-09-01 · Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] Remove in-tree usage of MAP_DENYWRITE · David Hildenbrand <hidden>
- 2021-08-27 · Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] Remove in-tree usage of MAP_DENYWRITE · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
- 2021-08-27 · RE: [PATCH v1 0/7] Remove in-tree usage of MAP_DENYWRITE · David Laight <hidden>
- 2021-08-26 · Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] Remove in-tree usage of MAP_DENYWRITE · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
- 2021-08-20 · Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] Remove in-tree usage of MAP_DENYWRITE · Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:
I’ll bite. How about we attack this in the opposite direction: remove the deny write mechanism entirely.
I think that would be ok, except I can see somebody relying on it.
It's broken, it's stupid, but we've done that ETXTBUSY for a _loong_ time.
But you are right that we have removed parts of it over time (no more
MAP_DENYWRITE, no more uselib()) so that what we have today is a
fairly weak form of what we used to do.
And nobody really complained when we weakened it, so maybe removing it
entirely might be acceptable.
Linus