Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 18:30:03 +0300
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 18:27, zxuiji <gb2985_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> villy that email was in response to the sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) being as little as 1, anyone programming for something embedded (which I presume the MMU would be) would not bother with using that call in the first place
Try to spell my name correctly when responding to me.
Yes, you also wrote
"Then the answer to the potential null+-1 being valid is simple,
mandate in the next standard that the 0+-PAGE_SIZE be premapped as
sealed no rwx pages. That resolves the problem completely. They don't
need to have anything mapped to them, just that they be mapped as
invalid."
which doesn't solve the problem "completely", or in fact, at all.
>
> villy that email was in response to the sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE) being as little as 1, anyone programming for something embedded (which I presume the MMU would be) would not bother with using that call in the first place
Try to spell my name correctly when responding to me.
Yes, you also wrote
"Then the answer to the potential null+-1 being valid is simple,
mandate in the next standard that the 0+-PAGE_SIZE be premapped as
sealed no rwx pages. That resolves the problem completely. They don't
need to have anything mapped to them, just that they be mapped as
invalid."
which doesn't solve the problem "completely", or in fact, at all.
Received on 2025-07-31 15:30:17