[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [OT] Testing PROT_NONE and other protections, and a surprise
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
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
wasn't really maintained for a few years, so it missed out on a lot of
fixes and such. They've tried to catch up on a lot of that and been
successful, but it still has a ways to go.

Kyle Moffett

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:0.069 / U:1.748 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site