RE: question on some test results
At 2002/7/23 05:15-0700 Wichmann, Mats D writes:
>
> > > mproctect 17 on ia64 fails, because by default non-text
> > > pages are not executable on Itanium. I can supply an
> > > incantation that is run on the test binary which should
> > > change this, but I'm not sure that's the right approach.
> > > Does the spec actually require executable data or stack
> > > pages?
> >
> >
> > There is no mprotect 17 test - do you mean testcase 4?
>
> Yes, I do. Sorry.
Ok. This is the assertion associated with the test thats failing:
A successful call to mprotect() when prot has the
PROT_EXEC flag set shall change the access protec-
tions for the range [addr,addr+len] to allow the
page(s) to be executed and return 0. If
_POSIX_MEMORY_PROTECTION is defined or the imple-
mentation supports the mprotect() function as
described in System Interfaces and Headers, Issue
5:
The mprotect call is passed the PROT_EXEC flag which is meant to
change the access protection for the page such that it is executable.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/mprotect.html
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/sys/mman.h.html
mprotect is returning sucessfully. The test to see if the page is
excutable is failing.
I'm pretty certain the behaviour we're seeing is a kernel bug. Just
playing around with the test a bit if the PROT_READ flag is also
passed to the mprotect call, then the testcase passes.
Regards,
Chris
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: