Hi Guys.

Noone provided a reason for (or even tried to defend)
the fact that PROT_EXEC is rejected by "noexec" even
for MAP_PRIVATE, while, say, PROT_WRITE is *not* rejected
for "ro" filesystem for MAP_PRIVATE. What was argued is
only MAP_SHARED.
I take it as an indication that people basically agree
that "noexec" should not affect MAP_PRIVATE like that.
So how about the patch (like the attached one) which
changes only the behaveour of MAP_PRIVATE?

Reasons:
- MAP_PRIVATE should not behave like that, "ro" and PROT_WRITE
is a witness.
- This is not a security check - file-backed MAP_PRIVATE
can just be replaced with MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS
mmap and read().
- The programs (like AFAIK wine) use MAP_PRIVATE mmaps to
access the windows dlls, which are usually on a "noexec"
fat or ntfs partitions. Wine might be smart enough not to
break but fallback to read(), but this is slower and more
memory-consuming. Some other program may not be that smart
and break. So there is clearly a need for MAP_PRIVATE with
PROT_EXEC on the noexec partitions.

Please let me know why this patch should not be applied.