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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site