On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:48:36PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:09:38 -0400, > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbffff000, 4096, > > > PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC|PROT_GROWSDOWN) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid > > > argument) > > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbfff8000, 32768, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC) > > > = -1 EFAULT (Bad address) > > > 08:55 <waldi> PROT_GROWSDOWN seems to be new in 2.4.21 and 2.5 > > > > I have no idea why waldi thinks PROT_GROWSDOWN is the problem. Rather, > > the EFAULT is the problem. At a guess, this is the case that we expect > > ENOMEM for in dl-execstack.c, but 2.4.18 is returning EFAULT instead > > for the same case. > > I don't know what the exact problem is - Does this problem occur with > 2.4 kernel? Can all furious PaX reports be fixed using 2.6 kernel?
This is separate from the PaX problems - it's stock 2.4. I don't know why it happens, but someone would need to set up a 2.4 system to debug it on. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
