On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
(b) sys_mremap() isn't covered.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:58:12PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
AFAICS it is covered.
--- mm1-2.6.11-rc2.orig/mm/mremap.c 2005-01-26 00:26:43.000000000 -0800
+++ mm1-2.6.11-rc2/mm/mremap.c 2005-01-27 12:34:34.000000000 -0800
@@ -297,6 +297,8 @@
if (flags & MREMAP_FIXED) {
if (new_addr & ~PAGE_MASK)
goto out;
+ if (!new_addr)
+ goto out;
This looks broken, look at the MREMAP_FIXED part...
The only way I can make sense of this is if you're trying to say that
because the user is trying to pass in a fixed address, that 0 should
then be permitted.
The intention was to disallow vmas starting at 0 categorically. i.e. it
is very intentional to deny the MREMAP_FIXED to 0 case of mremap().
It was also the intention to deny the MAP_FIXED to 0 case of mmap(),
though I didn't actually sweep that much (if at all).
-- wli
No! Then you can't make a tool that will be able to look at
the entire x86 address-space! You end up with an offset that will
eventually wrap to zero which you are denying. You must leave
MAP_FIXED alone. Ignore the 'C' pedants, a pointer is properly
initialized if it points to a mapped address. It would be absurd
to have to make the CPU calculate the address at run-time just
because you thew some rocks in the way.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
