From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755241AbYHDLSv (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:18:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754715AbYHDLSl (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:18:41 -0400 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.189]:50289 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753075AbYHDLSk (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:18:40 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=Y3PuJWMBhjeheEVehFyS2PbGGDhstWzqv9SUpmXV7+J+YGbBg3sLbx1AJdcaTUuh9x olZAoHUYLGX2gudRT5IzcwuhRkY1OkOgQLwo5TrDz0ye7lWOp0ZK5e5ZBmXFvryE2cz7 V1400ZTj1BRTfXLK9LtIp1rvGpnlDfZ/f5yb8= Message-ID: <9debc4410808040418u25f49436r4bb689f04f792564@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:48:38 +0530 From: "Maxin John" To: "Michael Kerrisk" Subject: Re: regarding mprotect() implementation in 2.6.26 kernel Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@muc.de, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, shields@tembel.org, hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9debc4410807310315n4da5beafh853a71f532420e9a@mail.gmail.com> <9debc4410807310324m4a76aaf5s253242e5cc2bb130@mail.gmail.com> <4891D58E.1070308@goop.org> <9debc4410808040319i3358a916v3b6cd534c0a0802c@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Michael, > So, after a quick search, it looks as though in kernels before 2.4.19, > the EFAULT error resulted instead of ENOMEM for this case. Does that > sound right to you? Yes, I do agree with you. After Linux Kernel version 2.4.19 , the ENOMEM error resulted instead of EFAULT in the mprotect(). Regards, Maxin B. John Bangalore, India