[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160226160712.754b765c@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:07:12 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree
Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
mm/mprotect.c
between commit:
62b5f7d013fc ("mm/core, x86/mm/pkeys: Add execute-only protection keys support")
from the tip tree and commit:
aff3915ff831 ("mm/mprotect.c: don't imply PROT_EXEC on non-exec fs")
from the akpm-current tree.
I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
(no action is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc mm/mprotect.c
index fa37c4cd973a,6ff5dfa65b33..000000000000
--- a/mm/mprotect.c
+++ b/mm/mprotect.c
@@@ -414,7 -409,11 +411,11 @@@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect, unsigned long
/* Here we know that vma->vm_start <= nstart < vma->vm_end. */
+ /* Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC */
+ if (rier && (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYEXEC))
+ prot |= PROT_EXEC;
+
- newflags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot);
+ newflags = calc_vm_prot_bits(prot, pkey);
newflags |= (vma->vm_flags & ~(VM_READ | VM_WRITE | VM_EXEC));
/* newflags >> 4 shift VM_MAY% in place of VM_% */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists