Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I meant to suggest is that I would start from a safety point of view
> with get_user_pages/access_process_vm refusing to do force& to
> MAP_PRIVATE pages that are in fact being shared (ETXTBSY or something).
That's a good idea. The other
Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I meant to suggest is that I would start from a safety point of view
with get_user_pages/access_process_vm refusing to do forcewrite to
MAP_PRIVATE pages that are in fact being shared (ETXTBSY or something).
That's a good idea. The other
I understand the NOMMU situation, and you are already screwed by
PTRACE_ATTACH. What I meant to suggest is that I would start from a
safety point of view with get_user_pages/access_process_vm refusing to
do force& to MAP_PRIVATE pages that are in fact being shared
(ETXTBSY or something). (When
I understand the NOMMU situation, and you are already screwed by
PTRACE_ATTACH. What I meant to suggest is that I would start from a
safety point of view with get_user_pages/access_process_vm refusing to
do forcewrite to MAP_PRIVATE pages that are in fact being shared
(ETXTBSY or something).
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That old ptrace check seems pretty questionable to me. I think what you
> want is for the nommu world's get_user_pages/access_process_vm when called
> with force=1,write=1 on a read-only MAP_PRIVATE page to do something more
> morally similar to the
Roland McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That old ptrace check seems pretty questionable to me. I think what you
want is for the nommu world's get_user_pages/access_process_vm when called
with force=1,write=1 on a read-only MAP_PRIVATE page to do something more
morally similar to the mmu
That old ptrace check seems pretty questionable to me. I think what you
want is for the nommu world's get_user_pages/access_process_vm when called
with force=1,write=1 on a read-only MAP_PRIVATE page to do something more
morally similar to the mmu world's COW than it does now.
Thanks,
Roland
-
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 09:37 +, David Howells wrote:
> Wu, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When adding utrace support to blackfin architecture, I found a compiling
> > error in nommu related utrace stuff. Then this little patch will fix
> > this for nommu arch utrace.
>
> You really
Wu, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When adding utrace support to blackfin architecture, I found a compiling
> error in nommu related utrace stuff. Then this little patch will fix
> this for nommu arch utrace.
You really don't want to do it like this. This prevents ELF shared libraries
from
Wu, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When adding utrace support to blackfin architecture, I found a compiling
error in nommu related utrace stuff. Then this little patch will fix
this for nommu arch utrace.
You really don't want to do it like this. This prevents ELF shared libraries
from being
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 09:37 +, David Howells wrote:
Wu, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When adding utrace support to blackfin architecture, I found a compiling
error in nommu related utrace stuff. Then this little patch will fix
this for nommu arch utrace.
You really don't want to
That old ptrace check seems pretty questionable to me. I think what you
want is for the nommu world's get_user_pages/access_process_vm when called
with force=1,write=1 on a read-only MAP_PRIVATE page to do something more
morally similar to the mmu world's COW than it does now.
Thanks,
Roland
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
