Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:12:14 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Svatopluk Kraus <onwahe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [patch] mmap() MAP_TEXT implementation (to use for shared libraries) Message-ID: <1347045134.1143.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120907185305.GE33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <CAFHCsPX6HrCXHA%2BS31Dz9QP8eiwbo21Vzju4K4paohciu2vPTw@mail.gmail.com> <201209071221.37409.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120907164218.GB33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <201209071405.28831.jhb@freebsd.org> <20120907184120.GD33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <1347043699.1143.2.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <20120907185305.GE33100@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 21:53 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 12:48:19PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > > 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. > > For me, if other user can block my modifications of my script by the mere > fact that script has o+rx rights, is indeed bad. I do use real machines > sometime. But you don't feel the same way about a compiled program? I see absolutely no difference between the two, conceptually. To me, changing an application while it's running is bad. It makes no difference what language the application is written in. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1347045134.1143.4.camel>