Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:37:23 -0600 From: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> To: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@freebsd.org>, arka_sharma@dell.com Cc: "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@FreeBSD.org>, "dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org" <dev-commits-src-all@FreeBSD.org>, "dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org" <dev-commits-src-main@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: git: 766c2466ff46 - main - mmap map_at_zero test: handle W^X Message-ID: <7569EC4F-E047-44C2-9964-D261D820E7F7@vangyzen.net> In-Reply-To: <5DF1CA02-6AF7-4588-A342-29F769CD5F23@freebsd.org> References: <202202211546.21LFkKhX053274@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <5DF1CA02-6AF7-4588-A342-29F769CD5F23@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If the test is just as legitimate without PROT_EXEC, what=E2=80=99s = the > justification for not just removing PROT_EXEC entirely rather than > making its behaviour depend on the sysctl, which could become = confusing > (and complicates the test)? IMO either the test should be skipped for > !allow_wx or it should always just make a RW mapping; this choice is > rather odd. The short answer is, we didn=E2=80=99t know whether PROT_EXEC was = essential, so this seemed like the safest change to preserve the intent = but also work correctly with W^X. It was also the easiest way to = increase test coverage of all these cases with the least code, since = some systems will run with W+X and others with W^X. Eric=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7569EC4F-E047-44C2-9964-D261D820E7F7>