Re: [PATCH] Expose SHM_HUGETLB in shmctl(id, IPC_STAT, ...)

[Andrew Morton]

Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> >> +	shp->shm_flags = (shmflg & (S_IRWXUGO | SHM_HUGETLB));
> > [...]
> > I dunno.  The manpage says:
> > 
> >        The highlighted fields in the member shm_perm can be set:
> > 
> >            struct ipc_perm {
> >        ...
> >                ushort mode;  /* lower 9 bits of access modes */
> >        ...
> >            };
> > 
> > So if an application used to do:
> > 
> > 	if (perm.mode == 0666)
> > 
> > it will now break, because we've gone and set bit 9 on hugetlb segments.
> 
> The man page on my system says:
> 
>                unsigned short mode;  /* Permissions + SHM_DEST and
>                                          SHM_LOCKED flags */
> 
> I looked for a precendent before sending the patch and thought that 
> SHM_LOCKED was a good one.
> 

hm, OK.   But an app could still do

	if (mode == 0666|SHM_LOCKED)


How important is this feature?
-
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/