[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:0.032 / U:2.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site