From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 12:58:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1151582323.23785.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060629073033.GF27526@elf.ucw.cz>
Ar Iau, 2006-06-29 am 09:30 +0200, ysgrifennodd Pavel Machek:
> > PROT_READ to be used or implicitly adding it. Don't confuse people
> > with wrong statement like yours.
>
> Can you quote part of POSIX where it says that PROT_WRITE must imply
> PROT_READ?
I don't believe POSIX cares either way
"An implementation may permit accesses other than those specified by
prot; however, if the Memory Protection option is supported, the
implementation shall not permit a write to succeed where PROT_WRITE has
not been set or shall not permit any access where PROT_NONE alone has
been set."
However the current behaviour of "write to map read might work some days
depending on the execution order of instructions" (and in some cases the
order that the specific CPU does its tests for access rights) is not
sane, not conducive to application stability and not good practice.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-29 11:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.PuMM6IwflUYh1MWILO9rb6z4fvY@ifi.uio.no>
2006-06-23 1:24 ` make PROT_WRITE imply PROT_READ Robert Hancock
2006-06-23 13:39 ` Jason Baron
2006-06-23 14:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-23 14:05 ` Jason Baron
2006-06-23 14:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-24 18:45 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-27 9:56 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-27 12:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-28 16:43 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-28 19:49 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-28 20:05 ` Chase Venters
2006-06-28 23:47 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-29 7:30 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-29 11:58 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2006-06-29 17:20 ` Pavel Machek
2006-06-29 21:00 ` Jason Baron
2006-07-07 2:05 ` Jason Baron
2006-06-30 3:49 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-29 8:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-30 3:48 ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-06-30 8:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-30 12:20 ` Alan Cox
[not found] <6qIEW-1Tx-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qIEW-1Tx-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUwd-2Aq-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUwd-2Aq-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUFV-2N8-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6qUFY-2N8-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6rlmT-8op-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6siwJ-3dC-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6sLoY-4GV-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6sZUS-V5-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6tib4-2wA-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6tmHL-Oq-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <6tpZ7-5Tj-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
2006-07-01 13:19 ` Bodo Eggert
2006-07-02 9:56 ` Alan Cox
2006-07-02 22:04 ` Bodo Eggert
2006-06-22 17:33 Jason Baron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1151582323.23785.16.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox