Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:34:14 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [BUG] mprotect() on Windows NT 5+ Message-ID: <20040715213414.GA13349@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <1089925820.40f6f2bcf1d88@imp3-q.free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1089925820.40f6f2bcf1d88@imp3-q.free.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:10:20PM +0200, Xavier Joubert wrote: >Hello Corinna, > > >Selon Corinna Vinschen : >> The cause is a limitation in newer Windows NT versions, which make sense. >> Well, sort of. The protection modes PAGE_READWRITE and PAGE_WRITECOPY are >> mutually exlusive, which is enforced in calls to VirtualProtect since W2K. >> >> Since your example uses MAP_PRIVATE, which Cygwin maps to PAGE_WRITECOPY, >> trying to protect with MAP_WRITE, which internally maps to PAGE_READWRTE, >> fails on W2K and later. I've checked in a fix, so that mprotect tests for >> the original protection mode of the first page in the area, and uses >> READWRITE or WRITECOPY, whichever matches the original protection. > >Whow! That's amazing! I didn't expect to get a reply today. Even less a fix >commited to CVS. If all bugs last only 51 minutes in Cygwin, this software will >quickly become perfect! Unfortunately, some of us are slackers and are not as adroit as Corinna in fixing bugs so perfection is still a long way off... cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/