Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:49:57 -0600 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: mprotect abuse in slim |
| |
Quoting Pekka Enberg (penberg@cs.helsinki.fi): > On 1/10/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >But since it looks like you just munmap the region now, shouldn't a > >subsequent munmap by the app just return -EINVAL? that seems appropriate > >to me. > > Applications don't know about revoke and neither should they. > Therefore close(2) and munmap(2) must work the same way they would for > non-revoked inodes so that applications can release resources > properly. > > Pekka
Right, but is returning -EINVAL to userspace on munmap a problem? It may not have been expected before, but it shouldn't break anything...
Thanks for the tw other patches - I'll give them a shot and check out current munmap behavior just as soon as I get a chance.
thanks, -serge
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |