On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:11:09 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> David Higgs recently reported an incorrect usage of uvm_map_protect(9):
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=174001772620750&w=2
>
> It turns out there's another one in exec_sigcode_map(), fixed by the
> diff below. Currently the uvm_map_protect(9) calls has no effect and
> returns EINVAL.
I'm not 100% sure that change is correct. Shouldn't it be:
error = (uvm_map_protect(&p->p_vmspace->vm_map, cmd->ev_addr,
trunc_page(cmd->ev_addr) + round_page(cmd->ev_len),
prot, 0, FALSE, TRUE));
to match uvm_mmap()?
- todd
