Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > The first patch introduced MAP_FIXED_SAFE which enforces the given >> > address but unlike MAP_FIXED it fails with ENOMEM if the given range >> > conflicts with an existing one. The flag is introduced as a completely >> >> I still think this name should be better. "SAFE" doesn't say what it's >> safe from... Yes exactly. > 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. >> 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 think Kees and I both previously suggested MAP_NO_CLOBBER for the modifier. So the obvious option for this would be MAP_FIXED_NO_CLOBBER. Which is a bit longer sure, but says more or less exactly what it does. cheers
