On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 4:59:35 PM CEST nia wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 03:56:22PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 1:17:05 PM CEST nia wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 04:17:55PM +0200, Dan-Simon Myrland wrote:
> > > > security.pax.mprotect.enabled=0
> > > > security.pax.aslr.enabled=0
> > >
> > > I am worried that this is because of the behaviour of libGL.
> > > This should not be necessary.
> >
> > It makes perfect sense for dosbox to require both. I also wouldn't be
> > surprised if Windows software at least fails with mprotect hardening.
> >
> > Joerg
> >
> >
> >
>
> We discussed this on IRC and the mprotect-disabled requirement isn't
> coming from dosbox's binary. If all that's changed is the OS version,
> chances increased that this isn't the fault of dosbox.
i386 or amd64? If it is using vm86 on i386, it should run into mprotect.
amd64 no longer supports vm86 mode, so it has to be fully emulated anyway.
Joerg