On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> >>> 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
