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

[Michael Ellerman]

Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed 29-11-17 14:25:36, Kees Cook wrote:
>> 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...

Yes exactly.

> 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 think Kees and I both previously suggested MAP_NO_CLOBBER for the
modifier.

So the obvious option for this would be MAP_FIXED_NO_CLOBBER.

Which is a bit longer sure, but says more or less exactly what it does.

cheers