On 05/11/19(Tue) 10:35, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:07:36 +0100 > > From: Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> > > > > Diff below reintroduce the `kv_executable' flag for km_alloc(9) with a > > different meaning. Instead of mapping the pages RWX, the flags allows > > the caller to change the protection of the mapping to include PROT_EXEC. > > > > This allows sti(4) to be converted to km_alloc(9), without introducing > > side-effect on the actual consumers of the API and without allows RWX > > mappings by default. > > > > ok? > > Hi Martin, > > Apologies for not reacting to your previous mail.
No worries, thanks for answering :) > I must say I don't really like this. This would convey the message > that it is ok to allocate executable memory. Are there other cases in > the tree besides sti(4) that would use this? By looking at the uses of uvm_map_protect(9), I'd say sti(4) is an exception. > If not, then maybe the solution is just to hand-roll a solution. I > need to refresh my meory on sti(4) though to see what's really going > on here again. Fine with me, I drop my diff then.
