![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||