![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 20:48 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On 6/29/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > > 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? > > There is a fundamental difference: not setting PROT_EXEC has no > negative side effects. You might be able to execute code and it just > works. > > With PROT_READ this is not the case, there _are_ side effects which are visible. there are side effects which are visible with PROT_EXEC too, and even the same kind... with PROT_READ you may read even if you didn't specify it with PROT_EXEC you may execute even if you didn't specifiy it apps like JVM's forgot PROT_EXEC and break when the hardware enforces it apps that forget PROT_READ break when the kernel/hardware enforce it not too much difference.... - 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: 2006-06-30 10:38 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||