Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 10 April,2001
1003.1-96 #115
_____________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation Number: XXXX
Topic: mprotect v mmap
Relevant Sections: 12.2.3.2 , 12.2.1.2, p272 l220, p278 l416
PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------
Date: 2000 June 16
Ref: XSH 408
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard
or DIS final text, if applicable):
IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (incorporates 1003.1-1990, 1003.1b-1993, 1003.1c-1995,
1003.1i-1995) (ISO 9945-1:1996)
--- and as amended by .1a, .1d and .1j.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):
3
Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
numbers):
I don't have the various as-amended copies available, but in the
Austin Group draft, where they all appear together:
P746 Line 23499 and P737 L 23168 (2d sentence of paragraph on)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
problem):
It would appear that the two paragraphs should be saying the same
thing (identically) and they do not, particularly the bit about
the _POSIX_MEMORY_PROTECTION option.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):
At least reconcile the two paragraphs. However, it would be better
to remove the duplication (by moving it to a section of general concepts)
and refer to the resultant text there. (I suspect that one or the other
paragraphs (probably the one at 23167) is correct as it stands.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation response
------------------------
The standard is clear; _POSIX_MEMORY_PROTECTION covers all of
mprotect but only part of mmap. No change is required.
Rationale
-------------
None.
Forwarded to Interpretations group: 19 June 2000
Proposed resolution: 25 July 2000
Finalised interpretation: 29 August 2000
[note, not part of this interpretation: an observation on 10 above,
one reason they do not have a statement about the Memory Protection
option in mprotect() is that the whole function is only supported in
.1-1996 when the option is supported, hence specifying semantics in that
case makes no sense]