Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps

Hi.

Ulrich Drepper wrote:

Definitely not.  The test should stay.  It does the right thing.  Yes,
some applications might break, but this is the fault of the application.

But why exactly? They do:
shm_open();
mmap(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC);
and mmap fails.
Where is the fault of an app here?

-
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: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: [email protected]

• References:
  • [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
    • From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] more fallout from get_property returning pointer to const
• Next by Date: [PATCH] #elif that should've been #elif defined
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]