On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:13:31PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > OK, this doesn't seem to lead to anywhere. The more this is discussed
> > the more names we are getting. So you know what? I will resubmit and
> > keep my original name. If somebod
On 12/08/2017 03:27 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Fri 2017-12-08 22:08:07, Michael Ellerman wrote:
If we had a time machine, the right set of flags would be:
- MAP_FIXED: don't treat addr as a hint, fail if addr is not free
- MAP_REPLACE: replace an existing mapping (or force or clobber)
Hi!
> > If we had a time machine, the right set of flags would be:
> >
> > - MAP_FIXED: don't treat addr as a hint, fail if addr is not free
> > - MAP_REPLACE: replace an existing mapping (or force or clobber)
>
> Actually, if we had a time machine... would we even provide
> MAP_REPLACE fun
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> OK, this doesn't seem to lead to anywhere. The more this is discussed
> the more names we are getting. So you know what? I will resubmit and
> keep my original name. If somebody really hates it then feel free to
> nack the patch and push alter
From: Michael Ellerman
> Sent: 08 December 2017 11:08
...
> If we had a time machine, the right set of flags would be:
>
> - MAP_FIXED: don't treat addr as a hint, fail if addr is not free
> - MAP_REPLACE: replace an existing mapping (or force or clobber)
>
> But the two were conflated for
On Fri 2017-12-08 22:08:07, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox writes:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:14:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Michael Ellerman
> >> wrote:
> >> > Matthew Wilcox writes:
> >> >> So, just like we currently say "exactly one of M
Matthew Wilcox writes:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:14:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Matthew Wilcox writes:
>> >> So, just like we currently say "exactly one of MAP_SHARED or MAP_PRIVATE",
>> >> we could add a new paragraph saying "
On Thu 07-12-17 11:57:27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:14:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Michael Ellerman
> > wrote:
> > > Matthew Wilcox writes:
> > >> So, just like we currently say "exactly one of MAP_SHARED or
> > >> MAP_PRIVATE",
> >
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:14:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Matthew Wilcox 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
> >
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox writes:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:54:35PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:51:44PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> > Cyril Hrubis writes:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi!
>>> > >> > MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE
>>>
Matthew Wilcox writes:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:54:35PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:51:44PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Cyril Hrubis writes:
>> >
>> > > Hi!
>> > >> > MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE
>> > >> > MAP_FIXED_ONCE
>> > >> > MAP_FIXED_FRESH
>> > >>
>> > >>
On 12/06/2017 04:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote:
> It is safe in
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Michal Hocko 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
On Wed 06-12-17 08:33:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Michal Hocko 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 a
On 12/06/2017 09:06 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 12/06/2017 08:33 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
In that case, maybe:
MAP_EXACT
? ...because that's the characteristic behavior.
Is that true? mmap still silently rounding up the length to the page s
On 12/05/2017 11:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 08:33 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
>> In that case, maybe:
>>
>> MAP_EXACT
>>
>> ? ...because that's the characteristic behavior.
>
> Is that true? mmap still silently rounding up the length to the page size, I
> assume, so even that
On 12/06/2017 08:33 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
In that case, maybe:
MAP_EXACT
? ...because that's the characteristic behavior.
Is that true? mmap still silently rounding up the length to the page
size, I assume, so even that name is misleading.
Thanks,
Florian
On 12/05/2017 11:03 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:54:35PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:51:44PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Cyril Hrubis writes:
>>>
Hi!
>> MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE
>> MAP_FIXED_ONCE
>> MAP_FIXED_FRESH
>
On 2017-12-06 05:50, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Michal Hocko 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.
>
> S
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:54:35PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:51:44PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Cyril Hrubis writes:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >> > MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE
> > >> > MAP_FIXED_ONCE
> > >> > MAP_FIXED_FRESH
> > >>
> > >> Well, I can open a poll for the best
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:51:44PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Cyril Hrubis writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >> > 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, nam
Cyril Hrubis writes:
> Hi!
>> > 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...
>
> Given that MAP_FIXED replaces the previous mapping MAP_FIXED_NOREPL
Michal Hocko writes:
> On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko 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 exist
Hi!
> > 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...
Given that MAP_FIXED replaces the previous mapping MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE
would probably be a best fit.
On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko 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 introduc
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko 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
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
> On 2017-11-29 15:42, Michal Hocko 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.
>
> [s/ENOMEM/EEXI
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Except we won't export expose the new semantic to the userspace at all.
I'm confused: the changes in patch 1 are explicitly adding
MAP_FIXED_SAFE to the uapi. If it's not supposed to be exposed,
shouldn't it go somewhere else?
-Kees
--
Kee
On Wed 29-11-17 16:13:53, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 2017-11-29 15:42, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >The flag is introduced as a completely
> > new one rather than a MAP_FIXED extension because of the backward
> > compatibility. We really want a never-clobber semantic even on older
> > kernels whi
On 2017-11-29 15:42, Michal Hocko 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.
[s/ENOMEM/EEXIST/, as it seems you also did in the actual patch and
changelog]
30 matches
Mail list logo
