At Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:09:38 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbffff000, 4096, > > PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC|PROT_GROWSDOWN) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid > > argument) > > 08:47 <waldi> mprotect(0xbfff8000, 32768, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE|PROT_EXEC) = > > -1 EFAULT (Bad address) > > 08:55 <waldi> PROT_GROWSDOWN seems to be new in 2.4.21 and 2.5 > > I have no idea why waldi thinks PROT_GROWSDOWN is the problem. Rather, > the EFAULT is the problem. At a guess, this is the case that we expect > ENOMEM for in dl-execstack.c, but 2.4.18 is returning EFAULT instead > for the same case.
I don't know what the exact problem is - Does this problem occur with 2.4 kernel? Can all furious PaX reports be fixed using 2.6 kernel? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
