On Tue 19-12-17 12:40:16, David Laight wrote:
> From: Edward Napierala
> > Sent: 14 December 2017 14:55
> >
> > On 1214T1415, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 14-12-17 12:44:17, Edward Napierala wrote:
> > > > Regarding the name - how about adopting MAP_EXCL? It was introduced in
> > > > FreeBSD,
From: Edward Napierala
> Sent: 14 December 2017 14:55
>
> On 1214T1415, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 14-12-17 12:44:17, Edward Napierala wrote:
> > > Regarding the name - how about adopting MAP_EXCL? It was introduced in
> > > FreeBSD,
> > > and seems to do exactly this; quoting mmap(2):
> > >
>
Kees Cook writes:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I am resending with some minor updates based on Michael's review and
>> ask for inclusion. There haven't been any fundamental objections for
>> the RFC [1] nor the previous version [2]. The biggest discussion
On 1214T1415, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 14-12-17 12:44:17, Edward Napierala wrote:
> > Regarding the name - how about adopting MAP_EXCL? It was introduced in
> > FreeBSD,
> > and seems to do exactly this; quoting mmap(2):
> >
> > MAP_FIXEDDo not permit the system to select a different addr
On Thu 14-12-17 12:44:17, Edward Napierala wrote:
> Regarding the name - how about adopting MAP_EXCL? It was introduced in
> FreeBSD,
> and seems to do exactly this; quoting mmap(2):
>
> MAP_FIXEDDo not permit the system to select a different address
> than the one spe
(+cc the jemalloc jasone; -cc,+bcc the Google jasone).
The only time we would want MAP_FIXED (or rather, a non-broken
variant) is in the middle of trying to expand an allocation in place;
"atomic address range probing in the multithreaded programs" describes
our use case pretty well. That's in a p
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:25:48 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am resending with some minor updates based on Michael's review and
> ask for inclusion. There haven't been any fundamental objections for
> the RFC [1] nor the previous version [2]. The biggest discussion
> revolved around the n
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am resending with some minor updates based on Michael's review and
> ask for inclusion. There haven't been any fundamental objections for
> the RFC [1] nor the previous version [2]. The biggest discussion
> revolved around the namin
On Wed 13-12-17 04:25:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am afraid we can bikeshed this to death and there will still be
> > somebody finding yet another better name. Therefore I've decided to
> > stick with my original MAP_FIXED_SAFE. Wh
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am afraid we can bikeshed this to death and there will still be
> somebody finding yet another better name. Therefore I've decided to
> stick with my original MAP_FIXED_SAFE. Why? Well, because it keeps the
> MAP_FIXED prefix which s
Hi,
I am resending with some minor updates based on Michael's review and
ask for inclusion. There haven't been any fundamental objections for
the RFC [1] nor the previous version [2]. The biggest discussion
revolved around the naming. There were many suggestions flowing
around MAP_REQUIRED, MAP_E
11 matches
Mail list logo