Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regarding mprotect(), POSIX also says:
An implementation may permit accesses other than those specified by
prot; however, no implementation shall permit a write to succeed where
PROT_WRITE has not been set or shall permit any access where PROT_NONE
alone has been set.
When sealed memory is encountered in the middle of a range, an error
will be returned (which almost noone looks at). Memory after the sealed
region will not be fixed to follow this rule.
It may retain higher permission.
> Maybe some atomicity rules have always been true for BSD, but they've
> never been true for Linux, and while I don't know how authoritative
> that opengroup thing is, it's what google found.
It is not a BSD thing. I searched many kernels. I did not find the
Linux behaviour anywhere else.
> > (Linus, don't be a jerk)
>
> I'm not the one who makes unsubstantiated statements and uses scare
> tactics to try to make said arguments sound more valid than they are.
>
> So keep your arguments real, please.
CAN YOU PLEASE SHUT IT WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS? ARE YOU SO INSECURE
THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION AND MAKE IT PERSONAL?
In a new world of immutable / sealed memory, I believe there is a much
bigger problem and I would appreciate if the Linux team would give it
some consideration.
mprotect and munmap (and other calls) can now fail, due to intentional
address space manipulation requested by a process (previously).
The other previous errors have been transient system effects, like ENOMEM.
This EPERM with partial change is not transient. A 5 line test program
can show memory which is not released, or which memory will retain
incorrect permissions.
Have any of you written test programs?
