From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:15:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1151568930.3122.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a36005b50606280943l54138e80tbda08e1607136792@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 09:43 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > Usability for "normal" C applications is probably not too high... so
> > why not work around it in glibc, if at all?
>
> Because it wouldn't affect all b inaries. Existing code could still
> cause the problem. Also, there are other callers of the syscalls
> (direct, other libcs, etc). The only reliable way to get rid of this
> problem is to enforce it in the kernel. Since the kernel cannot make
> sense of this setting in all situations it is IMO even necessary since
> you really don't want to have anything as unstable as this code.
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-29 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.PuMM6IwflUYh1MWILO9rb6z4fvY@ifi.uio.no>
2006-06-23 1:24 ` Robert Hancock
2006-06-23 13:39 ` Jason Baron
2006-06-23 14:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-23 14:05 ` Jason Baron
2006-06-23 14:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-24 18:45 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-27 9:56 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-27 12:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-28 16:43 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-28 19:49 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-28 20:05 ` Chase Venters
2006-06-28 23:47 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-29 7:30 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-29 11:58 ` Alan Cox
2006-06-29 17:20 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-29 21:00 ` Jason Baron
2006-07-07 2:05 ` Jason Baron
2006-06-30 3:49 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-29 8:15 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
2006-06-30 3:48 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-30 8:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-30 12:20 ` Alan Cox
[not found] <6qIEW-1Tx-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qIEW-1Tx-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUwd-2Aq-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUwd-2Aq-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUFV-2N8-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUFY-2N8-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6rlmT-8op-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6siwJ-3dC-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6sLoY-4GV-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6sZUS-V5-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6tib4-2wA-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6tmHL-Oq-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6tpZ7-5Tj-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-07-01 13:19 ` Bodo Eggert
2006-07-02 9:56 ` Alan Cox
2006-07-02 22:04 ` Bodo Eggert
2006-06-22 17:33 Jason Baron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1151568930.3122.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org \
--to=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®