On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 14:02 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:49:19AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 08:30:16AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > However I assume the workaround is there for a specific purpose, what > > > was it? > > A crash in mprotect. > > Maybe its the best to remove the workaround and instead cripple mprotect > to not allow PROT_NONE for now. And then hope that this can't be > triggered by mmap with PROT_NONE. I was thinking of going down the path of removing the workaround then fixing mprotect, so your suggestion would be a consistant first step I think. Ian. -- Ian Campbell Take what you can use and let the rest go by. -- Ken Kesey
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part