Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I meant to suggest is that I would start from a safety point of view
> with get_user_pages/access_process_vm refusing to do force&&write to
> MAP_PRIVATE pages that are in fact being shared (ETXTBSY or something).
That's a good idea. The other po
I understand the NOMMU situation, and you are already screwed by
PTRACE_ATTACH. What I meant to suggest is that I would start from a
safety point of view with get_user_pages/access_process_vm refusing to
do force&&write to MAP_PRIVATE pages that are in fact being shared
(ETXTBSY or something). (W
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That old ptrace check seems pretty questionable to me. I think what you
> want is for the nommu world's get_user_pages/access_process_vm when called
> with force=1,write=1 on a read-only MAP_PRIVATE page to do something more
> morally similar to the mmu
That old ptrace check seems pretty questionable to me. I think what you
want is for the nommu world's get_user_pages/access_process_vm when called
with force=1,write=1 on a read-only MAP_PRIVATE page to do something more
morally similar to the mmu world's COW than it does now.
Thanks,
Roland
-
T
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 09:37 +, David Howells wrote:
> Wu, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When adding utrace support to blackfin architecture, I found a compiling
> > error in nommu related utrace stuff. Then this little patch will fix
> > this for nommu arch utrace.
>
> You really don
Wu, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When adding utrace support to blackfin architecture, I found a compiling
> error in nommu related utrace stuff. Then this little patch will fix
> this for nommu arch utrace.
You really don't want to do it like this. This prevents ELF shared libraries
from b
6 matches
Mail list logo
