From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I5KuH-0006zu-JN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:21:29 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I5KuF-0006zi-6m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:21:28 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5KuF-0006zf-0N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:21:27 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1I5KuE-0001Qj-KJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:21:26 -0400
Received: from Relay1.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0DE2158A
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon,  2 Jul 2007 14:21:20 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4688EE56.7040505@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:23:50 +0200
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090606020800020308090603"
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Ignore PROT_GROWSDOWN and PROT_GROWSUP
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090606020800020308090603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In an mprotect call the flags PROT_GROWSDOWN and PROT_GROWSUP can be
defined. Currently qemu returns an EINVAL as soon as one of these is
found, which breaks some programs (especially mplayer).
As far as I can tell it is safe to ignore these flags and just go on as
if nothing happened. To be on the safe side a warning message to the
user is thrown though.

Is there anything wrong with ignoring these? Should they be implemented
properly? Comments appreciated.

Alex


--------------090606020800020308090603
Content-Type: text/x-patch;
 name="qemu-cvs-mprotect.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="qemu-cvs-mprotect.patch"

Index: qemu/linux-user/mmap.c
===================================================================
--- qemu.orig/linux-user/mmap.c
+++ qemu/linux-user/mmap.c
@@ -48,8 +48,10 @@ int target_mprotect(target_ulong start, 
     end = start + len;
     if (end < start)
         return -EINVAL;
-    if (prot & ~(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC))
-        return -EINVAL;
+    if (prot & ~(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC)) {
+	gemu_log("WARNING: dirty hack in mprotect: setting prot (%#x -> %#x)\n", prot, prot & (PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC));
+        prot &= (PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC);
+    }
     if (len == 0)
         return 0;
     

--------------090606020800020308090603--