Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR
Date: Fri Feb 17 2017 - 18:12:29 EST
On February 17, 2017 3:02:33 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski
>>> At the very least, I'd want to see
>>> MAP_FIXED_BUT_DONT_BLOODY_UNMAP_ANYTHING. I *hate* the current
>> That's unrelated, but I guess w could add a MAP_NOUNMAP flag, and
>> you can use MAP_FIXED | MAP_NOUNMAP or something.
>> But that has nothing to do with the 47-vs-56 bit issue.
>>> How about MAP_LIMIT where the address passed in is interpreted as an
>>> upper bound instead of a fixed address?
>> Again, that's a unrelated semantic issue. Right now - if you don't
>> pass in MAP_FIXED at all, the "addr" argument is used as a starting
>> value for deciding where to find an unmapped area. But there is no
>> to specify the end. That would basically be what the process control
>> thing would be (not per-system-call, but per-thread ).
>What I'm trying to say is: if we're going to do the route of 48-bit
>limit unless a specific mmap call requests otherwise, can we at least
>have an interface that doesn't suck?
Let's not, please.
But we really want this interface anyway.
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.