[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: mprotect abuse in slim
Quoting Pekka Enberg (
> On 1/10/07, Serge E. Hallyn <> wrote:
> >But since it looks like you just munmap the region now, shouldn't a
> >subsequent munmap by the app just return -EINVAL? that seems appropriate
> >to me.
> Applications don't know about revoke and neither should they.
> Therefore close(2) and munmap(2) must work the same way they would for
> non-revoked inodes so that applications can release resources
> properly.
> Pekka

Right, but is returning -EINVAL to userspace on munmap a problem?
It may not have been expected before, but it shouldn't break

Thanks for the tw other patches - I'll give them a shot and check
out current munmap behavior just as soon as I get a chance.


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: 2007-01-11 17:31    [W:0.075 / U:6.352 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site