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

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:13:31PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 alternative and gain concensus on it.
> >
> > I will keep MAP_FIXED_SAFE because it is an alternative to MAP_FIXED so
> > having that in the name is _useful_ for everybody familiar with
> > MAP_FIXED already. And _SAFE suffix tells that the operation doesn't
> > cause any silent memory corruptions or other unexpected side effects.
> 
> Looks like consensus is MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE.

I'd rather MAP_AT_ADDR or MAP_REQUIRED, but I prefer FIXED_NOREPLACE to
FIXED_SAFE.

I just had a thought though -- MAP_STATIC?  ie don't move it.