Ar Sul, 2006-09-17 am 13:24 -0700, ysgrifennodd Chris Wedgwood: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 06:39:47PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ for a number of architectures which > > don't support write only in hardware. > > Why don't we WARN where PROT_WRITE is used w/o PROT_READ? Do > non-trivial or non-contrived applications really use PROT_WRITE and > assume reads are OK?
Unfortunately yes. This was discovered in the real world. > It seems once we do this there will be little or no chance of ever > doing write-only mappings should we want to in the future using this > mechanism. Executable types already let us handle that, or as you suggest but the other way around you add PROT_REALLYLIKEWRITEONLYOK as a new mmap type (and as PROT_WRITE) for a new binary format later if the CPU ever supports it. Frankly I think the odds of Intel cpus growing write-only are remote.... Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
