Re: Arch specific mmap attributes (Was: mprotect pgprot handlingweirdness)

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 15:24 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> I guess you haven't catch my intention. I didn't say we have to remove 
> PROT_SAO and VM_SAO.
> I mean mmap(PROT_SAO) is ok, it's only append new flag, not change exiting
> flags meanings. I'm only against mprotect(PROT_NONE) turn off PROT_SAO
> implicitely.
> 
> IOW I recommend we use three syscall
> 	mmap()		create new mappings
> 	mprotect()	change a protection of mapping (as a name)
> 	mattribute(): (or similar name)
> 			change an attribute of mapping (e.g. PROT_SAO or
> 			another arch specific flags)
> 
> I'm not against changing mm/protect.c for PROT_SAO.

Ok, I see. No biggie. The main deal remains how we want to do that
inside the kernel :-) I think the less horrible options here are
to either extend vm_flags to always be 64-bit, or add a separate
vm_map_attributes flag, and add the necessary bits and pieces to
prevent merge accross different attribute vma's.

The more I try to hack it into vm_page_prot, the more I hate that
option.

Cheers
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/