Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 09:43 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Usability for "normal" C applications is probably not too high... so
> > why not work around it in glibc, if at all?
> 
> Because it wouldn't affect all b inaries.  Existing code could still
> cause the problem.  Also, there are other callers of the syscalls
> (direct, other libcs, etc).  The only reliable way to get rid of this
> problem is to enforce it in the kernel.  Since the kernel cannot make
> sense of this setting in all situations it is IMO even necessary since
> you really don't want to have anything as unstable as this code.

the thing is.. you can say EXACTLY the same about PROT_EXEC.. not all
processors support enforcing that.. so should we just always imply
PROT_EXEC as well?

-
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/