On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 20:48 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> 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.
there are side effects which are visible with PROT_EXEC too, and even
the same kind...
with PROT_READ you may read even if you didn't specify it
with PROT_EXEC you may execute even if you didn't specifiy it
apps like JVM's forgot PROT_EXEC and break when the hardware enforces it
apps that forget PROT_READ break when the kernel/hardware enforce it
not too much difference....
-
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]
