Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not so sure about this, I think I read somewhere that each loaded DLL is
> checked for this
> not just the main exe and the protection is disabled if at least on module is
> not nx compatible.
> But as no wine dll is marked as NX_COMPAT(i assume) t
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But as linux can't just switch on/off the protection for specific processes,
>> wine has to
>> emulate it by marking all readable memory as executable as well. And as all
>> this happens
>> behind the application's back,
Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But as linux can't just switch on/off the protection for specific processes,
> wine has to
> emulate it by marking all readable memory as executable as well. And as all
> this happens
> behind the application's back, I would still go with my first prop
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Why should this exception be visible to the application?
>> Plus if you make it visible, you can just forget this whole workaround idea,
>> because it won't work reliable anyways.
>
> Well, yes, the workaround is really a
Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why should this exception be visible to the application?
> Plus if you make it visible, you can just forget this whole workaround idea,
> because it won't work reliable anyways.
Well, yes, the workaround is really a hack that should be replaced by
a pro
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Peter Beutner wrote:
>>> Before starting to make this whole noexecute override behaviour
>>> configurable,
>>> it first must work reliable. In its current form there is no guarantee that
>>> the check_no_exec() function is
Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Beutner wrote:
>> Before starting to make this whole noexecute override behaviour configurable,
>> it first must work reliable. In its current form there is no guarantee that
>> the check_no_exec() function is actually called, because any other ins
Peter Beutner wrote:
> Before starting to make this whole noexecute override behaviour configurable,
> it first must work reliable. In its current form there is no guarantee that
> the check_no_exec() function is actually called, because any other installed
> exception handler might decide to handl
