Re: [PATCH] mprotect(2): mention effect of READ_IMPLIES_EXEC personality flag

["Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 04/23/2010 06:31 PM, Mark Seaborn wrote:
> I puzzled over mprotect()'s effect on /proc/*/maps for a while
> yesterday -- it was setting "x" without PROT_EXEC being specified.
> Here is a patch to add some explanation.

Mark, patch applied (rather late,,,).

Cheers,

Michael


> mprotect(2): mention effect of READ_IMPLIES_EXEC personality flag
> 
> diff --git a/man2/mprotect.2 b/man2/mprotect.2
> index d7b9712..a5aa2fb 100644
> --- a/man2/mprotect.2
> +++ b/man2/mprotect.2
> @@ -125,7 +125,15 @@ Whether
>  .B PROT_EXEC
>  has any effect different from
>  .B PROT_READ
> -is architecture- and kernel version-dependent.
> +depends on processor architecture, kernel version, and process state. If
> +.B READ_IMPLIES_EXEC
> +is set in the process's personality flags (see
> +.BR personality (2)),
> +specifying
> +.B PROT_READ
> +will implicitly add
> +.BR PROT_EXEC.
> +
>  On some hardware architectures (e.g., i386),
>  .B PROT_WRITE
>  implies
> 


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html