Re: [OT] Testing PROT_NONE and other protections, and a surprise

[Kyle Moffett]

On Jul 01, 2004, at 08:39, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> The error code is -1, aka. MAP_FAILED.
Oops!  I guess I was just lucky that part didn't fail :-D  On the other 
hand, it
couldn't legally return 0 anyway, could it?  That would have been a 
slightly
more sensible error code, IMHO, anyway, but it probably came from some
silly standard somewhere.

> > I'll probably go file a bug with Apple now :-D
>
> It might be a generic *BSD bug (for whatever value of * is used by 
> MacOS X).
>
> That would be interesting to know -- anyone here running *BSD on PPC
> or any other architecture to test?
>
> Of course it's an Apple bug as well :)

Apple's BSD derivative came out of the main tree several years ago, and 
it
wasn't really maintained for a few years, so it missed out on a lot of 
bug
fixes and such.  They've tried to catch up on a lot of that and been 
mildly
successful, but it still has a ways to go.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
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/