From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 7 18:48:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB7B106566B; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from duck.symmetricom.us (duck.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A24B8FC16; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from damnhippie.dyndns.org (daffy.symmetricom.us [206.168.13.218]) by duck.symmetricom.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q87ImMGO024839; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:48:22 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) Received: from [172.22.42.240] (revolution.hippie.lan [172.22.42.240]) by damnhippie.dyndns.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q87ImJx8045178; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:48:19 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org) From: Ian Lepore To: Konstantin Belousov In-Reply-To: <20120907184120.GD33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <201209071221.37409.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120907164218.GB33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <201209071405.28831.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120907184120.GD33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:48:19 -0600 Message-ID: <1347043699.1143.2.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Svatopluk, Kraus Subject: Re: [patch] mmap() MAP_TEXT implementation (to use for shared libraries) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:48:30 -0000 On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 21:41 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > After a second thought, I do not like your proposal as well. +x is set for > shebang scripts, and allowing PROT_EXEC to set VV_TEXT for them means > that such scripts are subject for write denial. You say that like it's a bad thing. I hate it when I accidentally edit a script that's running and then the script fails because I did. I would be much happier if it acted just like any other executable and prevented modification while it's running. -- Ian