On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 15:24 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > I guess you haven't catch my intention. I didn't say we have to remove > PROT_SAO and VM_SAO. > I mean mmap(PROT_SAO) is ok, it's only append new flag, not change exiting > flags meanings. I'm only against mprotect(PROT_NONE) turn off PROT_SAO > implicitely. > > IOW I recommend we use three syscall > mmap() create new mappings > mprotect() change a protection of mapping (as a name) > mattribute(): (or similar name) > change an attribute of mapping (e.g. PROT_SAO or > another arch specific flags) > > I'm not against changing mm/protect.c for PROT_SAO. Ok, I see. No biggie. The main deal remains how we want to do that inside the kernel :-) I think the less horrible options here are to either extend vm_flags to always be 64-bit, or add a separate vm_map_attributes flag, and add the necessary bits and pieces to prevent merge accross different attribute vma's. The more I try to hack it into vm_page_prot, the more I hate that option. Cheers Ben. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>