lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: mprotect abuse in slim
    Quoting Pekka Enberg (penberg@cs.helsinki.fi):
    > On 1/10/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> 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
    anything...

    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.

    thanks,
    -serge

    -
    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: 2007-01-11 17:31    [W:0.019 / U:213.992 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site