Sebastien Marie wrote:
> Assuming the check on protection is a bit too restrictive, and it is
> fine to have some chunks with PROT_NONE, I think we want something like:
are readonly stacks meaningful? if so, we should fix that too now instead of
waiting.
>
> Index: uvm/uvm_map.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/uvm/uvm_map.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.234
> diff -u -p -r1.234 uvm_map.c
> --- uvm/uvm_map.c 12 Apr 2018 17:13:44 -0000 1.234
> +++ uvm/uvm_map.c 16 Apr 2018 15:20:30 -0000
> @@ -1849,7 +1849,11 @@ uvm_map_is_stack_remappable(struct vm_ma
> #if 0
> printf("iter prot: 0x%x\n", iter->protection);
> #endif
> - if (iter->protection != (PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE)) {
> + switch (iter->protection) {
> + case PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE:
> + case PROT_NONE:
> + break;
> + default:
> printf("map stack 0x%lx-0x%lx of map %p failed: "
> "bad protection\n", addr, end, map);
> return FALSE;
>
>
> I will send a diff for emulators/qemu to add MAP_STACK after this part
> is resolved.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Sebastien Marie
>
