If your boss said "we need these two programs to have lock free IPC through memory" and you said "use MAP_ANONYMOUS" they would say "that is local to the process tree and won't work".
You can try to ignore the context of this thread, but if someone wants IPC, this doesn't work.
> But then that isn't interproccess communication.
It is. It may not be _generic_ IPC, but it is IPC all the same. E.g., this is how postgres does IPC across its processes.
> that is local to the process tree and won't work
Isn't that what SHM is for? But, oh I see, you're willfully ignoring the fact that SHM keys _are not file paths_. So, yeah, I guess in _your_ world, non-file-backed IPC can't work.
> If your boss said ...
Sucks to be your boss, since _you_ don't get the fact that SHM keys and the filesystem are entirely separate namespaces.
That's all I can say to you now, apart from "this is not StackOverflow".