On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:14:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So, just like we currently say "exactly one of MAP_SHARED or MAP_PRIVATE", > >> we could add a new paragraph saying "at most one of MAP_FIXED or > >> MAP_REQUIRED" and "any of the following values". > > > > MAP_REQUIRED doesn't immediately grab me, but I don't actively dislike > > it either :) > > > > What about MAP_AT_ADDR ? > > > > It's short, and says what it does on the tin. The first argument to mmap > > is actually called "addr" too. > > "FIXED" is supposed to do this too. > > Pavel suggested: > > MAP_ADD_FIXED > > (which is different from "use fixed", and describes why it would fail: > can't add since it already exists.) > > Perhaps "MAP_FIXED_NEW"? > > There has been a request to drop "FIXED" from the name, so these: > > MAP_FIXED_NOCLOBBER > MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE > MAP_FIXED_ADD > MAP_FIXED_NEW > > Could be: > > MAP_NOCLOBBER > MAP_NOREPLACE > MAP_ADD > MAP_NEW > > and we still have the unloved, but acceptable: > > MAP_REQUIRED > > My vote is still for "NOREPLACE" or "NOCLOBBER" since it's very > specific, though "NEW" is pretty clear too. How about MAP_NOFORCE? -- 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
