[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB=4xhrStO=ec92KD2W6V3QzjgaET5jvF1PXdAdu_LdFg7G82Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:46:17 -0700
From: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmap: add sysctl for controlling ~VM_MAYEXEC taint
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> They might result in the same system call but one of them creates
> the file under /dev/shm which should not have the same permissions
> problem. The library really appears to want to create a shared
> executable object, using shm_open does not appear that unreasonable
> to me.
People do use shm_open. Some systems mount /dev/shm with noexec.
That's why we're here in the first place.
> Which then needs to be copied in each distro wanting to do the same
> thing and is not backwards compatible where as using shm_open is.
Each distro wanting to set noexec on its /dev/shm mounts has to set the
sysctl (or its default in their kernel builds), yes. Otherwise they are
not compatible with the expectation of using PROT_EXEC on files opened with
shm_open.
Thanks,
Roland
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists