Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 be better. "SAFE" doesn't say what it's
safe from...

MAP_FIXED_UNIQUE
MAP_FIXED_ONCE
MAP_FIXED_FRESH

?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security