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. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
