On 11/24/2017 12:29 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
Although weird, the thought here was that pkey_mprotect() callers are new and should know about the interactions with PROT_EXEC. They can also*get* PROT_EXEC semantics if they want. The only wart here is if you do: mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC); // key 10 is now the PROT_EXEC key
I thought the PROT_EXEC key is always 1?
pkey_mprotect(..., PROT_EXEC, key=3); I'm not sure what this does. We should probably ensure that it returns an error.
Without protection key support, PROT_EXEC would imply PROT_READ with an ordinary mprotect. I think it makes sense to stick to this behavior. It is what I have documented for glibc:
<https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-11/msg00841.html> Thanks, Florian -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
