> From: Todd C. Miller <mill...@openbsd.org> > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:54:08 -0600 > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:11:09 +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > David Higgs recently reported an incorrect usage of uvm_map_protect(9): > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=174001772620750&w=2 > > > > It turns out there's another one in exec_sigcode_map(), fixed by the > > diff below. Currently the uvm_map_protect(9) calls has no effect and > > returns EINVAL. > > I'm not 100% sure that change is correct. Shouldn't it be: > > error = (uvm_map_protect(&p->p_vmspace->vm_map, cmd->ev_addr, > trunc_page(cmd->ev_addr) + round_page(cmd->ev_len), > prot, 0, FALSE, TRUE)); > > to match uvm_mmap()?
That doesn't make sense to me. Where is that idiom used?
