[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:0.032 / U:4.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site