On 6/29/06, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
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?
There is a fundamental difference: not setting PROT_EXEC has no negative side effects. You might be able to execute code and it just works. With PROT_READ this is not the case, there _are_ side effects which are visible. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- References:
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Robert Hancock <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Jason Baron <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Jason Baron <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: "Ulrich Drepper" <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2/6] [Network namespace] Network device sharing by view
- Next by Date: Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- Previous by thread: Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- Next by thread: Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
- Index(es):
 |