David Mosberger <email@example.com> wrote:
> I don't know why SET_PERSONALITY() came to be where it is now, but it
> does make some sense to me. One thing that comes to mind: on ia64, we
> normally don't map data segments with execute permission but for
> backwards-compatibility, we need to do that for x86 binaries. I think
> there might be a problem with that if SET_PERSONALITY() was done too
> late. Certainly something that could be fixed, but I suspect a
> similar ordering issue (perhaps on SPARC?) might have triggered the
> current placement of SET_PERSONALITY().
hmm. Seems that all the activities between the two first SET_PERSONALITY()
calls and the flush_old_exec() are pretty innocuous. And no mappings could
be set up there, because flush_old_exec() would remove them again.
I'll ask Dave about it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:18 EST