Re: [patch 1/1] make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ

Chris Wedgwood
2006-09-18T04:31:06Z

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:03:51PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> I think the problem is that these applications break randomly,

which means they are broken surely?

> depending on exactly when page faults happen, and these patches make
> the behaviour consistent and deterministic.

so would detecting PROT_WRITE w/o PROT_READ and returning -EINVAL
surely then?

it would still be broken so no loss there and we wouldn't have to make
such a long term change