similar to: [LLVMdev] rwx pages dangerous?

I'm not sure about the legacy JIT interface, but I don't think this can be done cleanly with the current MCJIT interface. I mentioned a while ago that this is one of the improvements we'd like to make to MCJIT. I can definitely see Josh's point about performance, and so we won't want permissions to always be set, but I do think it's worth revising the interface between

On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Josh Haberman wrote: > I noticed that JITMemoryManager allocates its slabs as rwx. Isn't it a security problem to have memory mapped as both writable and executable? I think JITs often avoid this by mapping their memory as rw, then switching it to rx once the data has been written. I was facing a similar problem in a JIT of my own and was curious to see how

In the world of the MCJIT, memory allocation, including permissioning, is the responsibility of the client application. The MCJIT only directly touches memory in the address space of the host. Once the old JIT is removed, all of the allocations done by the included memory manager can become RW. lli's trivial memory manager will then have the RW->X transition for code sections. All of the

The main problem, as I see it, is that there's no way for the memory manager to know when it can safely change the protection state of sections apart from making assumptions about the implementation of MCJIT (namely that it will generate code on construction) and receiving some sort of notification outside the standard interface. I believe there's also no provision for handling read-only

Somewhat, yes. The MCJIT currently doesn't support lazy compilation in general, and things like notifications back (via the memory manager) when new sections have been produced and such needs to be part of that. Your'e right that, for now, the underlying assumption is that everything gets built up at once. The following is mostly stuff we've talked about before, but just to make sure

When you talk about lazy compilation, it isn't clear to me if you mean the single compilation step that produces a loadable module being delayed until a function is requested or the full-blown, legacy-JIT style lazy compilation of individual functions within a module being JITed only when needed. If the latter, it isn't clear to me how that would be done within the MC model. That's a

What is the best way to add song metadata (artist, album, title, etc.) to flac files? I want to be able to define an arbitrary number of FIELD=value pairs. Earlier I heard someone mention using id3 tags. I tried this with the command-line "id3v2", and while it seemed to work I noticed that the resulting file no longer began with "fLaC", which violates the format

Are there any plans to add stack switching to LLVM? I've seen a few proposals for it floating around (some even implemented): http://ulir.ul.ie/handle/10344/2927 (implemented in: https://github.com/stedolan/llvm) https://code.google.com/p/llvm-stack-switch/ But I couldn't find any discussion of whether there was a plan to integrate one of these. Any plans to add this feature? Thanks,

Thanks for the quick response on the C++ thing. It would also be nice if the host program could correctly write the STREAMINFO block in the stream encoder metadata callback without having to know the specifics of the header format (or worry about endianness). How exactly to achieve this might take some thought, but what about this idea: 1. The correct way to respond to the metadata callback:

I have read through that and that's where I'm at now. I cannot understand why I have permissions fighting and the group permissions are being trumped by the owner. Regards Karl -----Original Message----- From: Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> Reply-To: Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> To: samba at lists.samba.org Subject: Re: [Samba] Group with RWX acl

Hi Matt, thanks for the reply. * Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 11:39:11PM -0800, Joshua Haberman wrote: > > > So I was wondering if flac could be incorporated into the filesystem > > driver so that any file ending in .wav would be transparently encoded > > into flac. I don't know if this could be done at the vfs level so that >

On 07/06/2011 08:28, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Hi Yuri, You're correct that the current JITMemoryManager interface > isn't a very good fit for the MCJIT. For the time being though, the > intent is to work with it as much as possible so that the MCJIT can be > a drop-in replacement for the old JIT. If we change the > JITMemoryManager API right off the bat, we'll make it

Hello, I am having problem setting permission on shared folder: the folder is?datasamba/common and after I set full permission for a user itester (3000017) and also?tester (3000018), I could see that it is only granting r-x to those users. but I could see from the default permissions that they have rwx. getfacl /datasamba/common # file: datasamba/common # owner: root # group: users #

Hi, After this commit: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=88984 the X86 JIT no longer emits calls using call <ADDR>, but always uses mov REG, <ADDR>, call *REG. This causes problems for the usage of LLVM in JITs since the JIT can no longer patch the callsite after the callee have been compiled. According to the comments for the commit, this was done to fix the

Hi, I'm searching the web for a while but cannot find an answer to this, even on Samba wiki, so please, does somebody have a clue, how to enable MODIFY access permission for a file that is located on Samba share? The fileserver is Samba, member of AD domain, local filesystem ext4, basic ACLs. The file has properly set rwx for users and groups needed, both for a file and for parent directory.

Thank you for any help with this: Using xattr so that I can manage a domain joined Samba server share with AD permissions. The underlying OS file perms are 777 and I have set the share with -R a+w to make sure that permissions for owner and group are the same. Getfacl returns: # file: deleteme.txt # owner: root # group: group_access user::rwx group::rwx group:group_access:rwx mask::rwx

On Jul 6, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Yuri wrote: > On 07/06/2011 08:28, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> Hi Yuri, You're correct that the current JITMemoryManager interface isn't a very good fit for the MCJIT. For the time being though, the intent is to work with it as much as possible so that the MCJIT can be a drop-in replacement for the old JIT. If we change the JITMemoryManager API right off

Hello FLACers, I'm working on implementing FLAC support for Audacity, a cross-platform audio editor (audacity.sourceforge.net). We're experimenting with using FLAC as the internal data representation. Unfortunately, the FLAC headers cannot be used in C++ programs because of the use of 'private' and 'protected' as variable names in stream_decoder.h, stream_encoder.h, and

You should look at http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/JITMemoryManager.h?view=markup and see if inheriting from that and overriding allocateGlobal() will do what you want. I'm a little surprised the boehm gc doesn't already see the globals, since there's a reference to their memory from the JMM, but maybe it doesn't scan mmap regions by

Thank You, Rowland. I have already read that. According to chapter File System Support, does that imply, that Samba could also well never grant Modify permission for linux ACLs? Do I need extended ACLs on filesystem in order to do that? I thought, that write permission on filesystem should be sufficient for Samba to grant Modify for Windows... As of smb.conf, here is snippet [pripomienkovanie]