Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ

[Pavel Machek]

On Wed 2006-06-28 16:47:00, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 6/28/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >mmap() behaviour always was platform-specific, and it happens to be
> >quite strange on i386. So what.
> 
> Nonsense.  The mmap semantics is specified in POSIX.  If something
> doesn't work as requested it is a bug.  For the specific issue hurting
> x86 and likely others the standard explicitly allows requiring
> PROT_READ to be used or implicitly adding it.  Don't confuse people
> with wrong statement like yours.

Can you quote part of POSIX where it says that PROT_WRITE must imply
PROT_READ?
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/