On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 12:36:11PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > If anywhing this would require to have a loop over all PROT_NONE > > mappings to not hit into other weird usecases. > > That's what I was thinking of. Tried the following patch: (...) > - next = vma->vm_next; > + /* > + * Allow VM_NONE mappings in the gap as some applications try > + * to make their own stack guards > + */ > + for (next = vma->vm_next; > + next && !(next->vm_flags & (VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC)); > + next = next->vm_next) > + ;
That's what I wanted to propose but I feared someone would scream at me for this loop :-) +1 for me! Willy
