Stas Sergeev wrote: > Now, as the access(X_OK) is fixed, would it be > feasible for ld.so to start using it? Just must be kidding. No access control can be reliably implemented at userlevel. There is no point starting something as stupid as this. -- ➧ 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] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- From: Stas Sergeev <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] remove MNT_NOEXEC check for PROT_EXEC mmaps
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH] nForce4 ADMA with NCQ: It's aliiiive..
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 01/10] -mm: clocksource: increase initcall priority
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] honour MNT_NOEXEC for access()
- Index(es):
 |