Hi! > MAP_FIXED is used quite often to enforce mapping at the particular > range. The main problem of this flag is, however, that it is inherently > dangerous because it unmaps existing mappings covered by the requested > range. This can cause silent memory corruptions. Some of them even with > serious security implications. While the current semantic might be > really desiderable in many cases there are others which would want to > enforce the given range but rather see a failure than a silent memory > corruption on a clashing range. Please note that there is no guarantee > that a given range is obeyed by the mmap even when it is free - e.g. > arch specific code is allowed to apply an alignment. > > Introduce a new MAP_FIXED_SAFE flag for mmap to achieve this behavior. > It has the same semantic as MAP_FIXED wrt. the given address request Could we get some better name? Functionality seems reasonable, but _SAFE suffix does not really explain what is going on to the user. MAP_ADD_FIXED ? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
