Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 21:04:23 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: jmb@kryten.atinc.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: MIT SHM X11 extensions? (fwd) Message-ID: <9502070404.AA10165@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199502070316.TAA00688@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Feb 6, 95 07:16:56 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >> Further, Terry's assertion that the > >> binary's vnode has the VTEXT flag turned on (and thus prevents you from > >> overwriting it [ETXTBUSY]) is also WRONG. It does NOT do this, and as such it > >> is perfectly okay to clobber your binary. > > > >Oh ick. > > > >Uh, why is ETXTBUSY still around? > > To protect executing, pageable, binaries from being clobbered...which is > exactly how it is used. The kernel is not a pageable binary, is not "executed" > in the traditional sense. See the first set of quoted material above -- how are you not tagging the vnode, yet you know to return ETXTBUSY? The only locking I can see is advisory. And it *looks* like the VTEXT *is* being used. How does this jive with it being OK to clobber your binary? Or did you think I was talking about the VTEXT flag being set on the kernel vnode? I *know* that doesn't happen: the kernel isn't opened through the VFS, it's opened by the boot code. Is there something here I am missing? Puzzled, Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502070404.AA10165>