From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964898AbdBQXMZ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:12:25 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([65.50.211.136]:46174 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964820AbdBQXMV (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:12:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:11:52 -0800 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20170217141328.164563-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20170217141328.164563-34-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR To: Andy Lutomirski , Linus Torvalds CC: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , the arch/x86 maintainers , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , Andi Kleen , Dave Hansen , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Catalin Marinas , Linux API From: hpa@zytor.com Message-ID: <86524164-94F0-44D6-8B1A-6858E23F66B5@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On February 17, 2017 3:02:33 PM PST, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski > wrote: >>> >>> At the very least, I'd want to see >>> MAP_FIXED_BUT_DONT_BLOODY_UNMAP_ANYTHING. I *hate* the current >>> interface. >> >> That's unrelated, but I guess w could add a MAP_NOUNMAP flag, and >then >> 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 >way >> 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.