> From: "Ted Unangst" <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:57:04 -0400 > > Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > >> > > >> Since PT_WRITE_I and PT_WRITE_D are documented as strictly equivalent > > >> since rev. 1.1, I doubt that such an optimization is a good idea. > > > > > > A clear case where the documentation is wrong. > > > > > > The documentation may have been wrong for some time on some archs, it > > feels like making PT_WRITE_D and PT_WRITE_I equivalent was deemed > > useful at one point. Given that Free and NetBSD document the same > > guarantee, I personally don't feel comfortable changing that, but YMMV. > > This is a trap designed to make code work on amd64 and fail on hppa. > But if kettenis cares more about hppa than most people, maybe we should let > him be the one to decide. :)
I'm not really worried about this; ptrace(2) is only used by gdb and people writing exploits ;).
