On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:19:23PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Some architectures can now support EXEC_ONLY mappings and I am wondering
> what get_user_pages() on those addresses should return. Earlier
> PROT_EXEC implied PROT_READ and pte_access_permitted() returned true for
> that. But
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:27:19PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> On 11/10/23 8:23 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:19:23PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Some architectures can now support EXEC_ONLY mappings and I am wondering
> >> what
On 11/10/23 8:23 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:19:23PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Some architectures can now support EXEC_ONLY mappings and I am wondering
>> what get_user_pages() on those addresses should return.
>
> -EPERM
>
>> Earlier
On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:19:23PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Some architectures can now support EXEC_ONLY mappings and I am wondering
> what get_user_pages() on those addresses should return.
-EPERM
> Earlier PROT_EXEC implied PROT_READ and pte_access_permitted()
>
Hello,
Some architectures can now support EXEC_ONLY mappings and I am wondering
what get_user_pages() on those addresses should return. Earlier
PROT_EXEC implied PROT_READ and pte_access_permitted() returned true for
that. But arm64 does have this explicit comment that says
/*
*