Arun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >> + shp->shm_flags = (shmflg & (S_IRWXUGO | SHM_HUGETLB));
> > [...]
> > I dunno. The manpage says:
> >
> > The highlighted fields in the member shm_perm can be set:
> >
> > struct ipc_perm {
> > ...
> > ushort mode; /* lower 9 bits of access modes */
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > So if an application used to do:
> >
> > if (perm.mode == 0666)
> >
> > it will now break, because we've gone and set bit 9 on hugetlb segments.
>
> The man page on my system says:
>
> unsigned short mode; /* Permissions + SHM_DEST and
> SHM_LOCKED flags */
>
> I looked for a precendent before sending the patch and thought that
> SHM_LOCKED was a good one.
>
hm, OK. But an app could still do
if (mode == 0666|SHM_LOCKED)
How important is this feature?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]