On 04/23/2010 06:31 PM, Mark Seaborn wrote: > I puzzled over mprotect()'s effect on /proc/*/maps for a while > yesterday -- it was setting "x" without PROT_EXEC being specified. > Here is a patch to add some explanation. Mark, patch applied (rather late,,,). Cheers, Michael > mprotect(2): mention effect of READ_IMPLIES_EXEC personality flag > > diff --git a/man2/mprotect.2 b/man2/mprotect.2 > index d7b9712..a5aa2fb 100644 > --- a/man2/mprotect.2 > +++ b/man2/mprotect.2 > @@ -125,7 +125,15 @@ Whether > .B PROT_EXEC > has any effect different from > .B PROT_READ > -is architecture- and kernel version-dependent. > +depends on processor architecture, kernel version, and process state. If > +.B READ_IMPLIES_EXEC > +is set in the process's personality flags (see > +.BR personality (2)), > +specifying > +.B PROT_READ > +will implicitly add > +.BR PROT_EXEC. > + > On some hardware architectures (e.g., i386), > .B PROT_WRITE > implies > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
