kastiglione added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:1436
result |= ePermissionsReadable;
- if (seg_cmd.initprot & VM_PROT_WRITE)
+ if ((seg_cmd.initprot & VM_PROT_WRITE) && !(seg_cmd.flags & SG_READ_ONLY))
result |= ePermissionsWritable;
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> kastiglione wrote:
> > augusto2112 wrote:
> > > Could we add a new value in the enumeration? Something like
> > > ePermissionsLinkerWritable? As it is right now this would be dangerous
> > > for the existing file-cache optimization as we'd happily read pointers
> > > that are supposed to be fixed by the linker from the file-cache.
> > That works for me. I think we'd want `ePermissionsLoaderWritable`.
> That sounds good.
Some idle questions:
1. Some code turns permissions into a string, like `rw-` or `r-x`, but there's
no string character for this "hybrid" writable flag.
2. Other code might make r/w/x assumptions, and have bugs because of this extra
state?
3. Do any other binary file formats have this notion, or would this be forcing
a Mach-O specific flag into a portable concept?
I haven't looked yet, but I'm thinking it would be good if there were some
other set of flags this information could be stored in.
I'm also not even sure if `SG_READ_ONLY` should modify permissions. For such a
segment, should the permissions say it's writable, and something else say
"actually no it's not", or should the permissions say it's non-writable, and
something else says "actually it is written to by the loader".
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118494/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D118494
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
