Alan Cox wrote: > I doubt anyone uses access() any more for anything but this doesn't seem > to conflict with the POSIX spec. Well, there are cases where access is used (libc, for instance, uses it instead of an open for files which most likely don't exist since access if faster than a failed open call). The change itself is conceptually correct. I haven't looked at the technical details but it looks OK. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- References:
- Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [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: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [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: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [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: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
- From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
- [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- Next by Date: [PATCH] ppc: PReP fixup after irq changes
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- Index(es):
 |