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

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: introduce MAP_FIXED_SAFE
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 22:08:07 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87shclh3zc.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171207195727.GA26792@bombadil.infradead.org>

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> 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 <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>> > Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> 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
>> >> MAP_REQUIRED" and "any of the following values".
>> >
>> > MAP_REQUIRED doesn't immediately grab me, but I don't actively dislike
>> > it either :)
>> >
>> > What about MAP_AT_ADDR ?
>> >
>> > It's short, and says what it does on the tin. The first argument to mmap
>> > is actually called "addr" too.
>> 
>> "FIXED" is supposed to do this too.
>> 
>> Pavel suggested:
>> 
>> MAP_ADD_FIXED
>> 
>> (which is different from "use fixed", and describes why it would fail:
>> can't add since it already exists.)
>> 
>> Perhaps "MAP_FIXED_NEW"?
>> 
>> There has been a request to drop "FIXED" from the name, so these:
>> 
>> MAP_FIXED_NOCLOBBER
>> MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE
>> MAP_FIXED_ADD
>> MAP_FIXED_NEW
>> 
>> Could be:
>> 
>> MAP_NOCLOBBER
>> MAP_NOREPLACE
>> MAP_ADD
>> MAP_NEW
>> 
>> and we still have the unloved, but acceptable:
>> 
>> MAP_REQUIRED
>> 
>> My vote is still for "NOREPLACE" or "NOCLOBBER" since it's very
>> specific, though "NEW" is pretty clear too.
>
> How about MAP_NOFORCE?

It doesn't tell me that addr is not a hint. That's a crucial detail.

Without MAP_FIXED mmap never "forces/replaces/clobbers", so why would I
need MAP_NOFORCE if I don't have MAP_FIXED?

So it needs something in there to indicate that the addr is not a hint,
that's the only thing that flag actually *does*.

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 some reason in the current MAP_FIXED.

Given we can't go back and fix it, the closest we can get is to add a
variant of MAP_FIXED which subtracts the "REPLACE" semantic.

ie: MAP_FIXED_NOREPLACE

cheers

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>