On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:03:51PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I think the problem is that these applications break randomly,
>
> which means they are broken surely?
>
> > depending on exactly when page faults happen, and these patches make
> > the behaviour consistent and deterministic.
>
> so would detecting PROT_WRITE w/o PROT_READ and returning -EINVAL
> surely then?
>
> it would still be broken so no loss there and we wouldn't have to make
> such a long term change
That would break apps that use PROT_WRITE correctly (i.e. for writing only).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
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
