Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 7/11/06, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How about execveu()? -n looked a bit weird to me, mostly because the
>> "le" form would be execlen() which looks like something completely
>> different...
>
> I would prefer a more general parameter. With this extension it is
> expected to have six new interfaces. I really don't want to repeat
> this if somebody comes up with yet another nice extension.
>
> So, how about generalizing the parameter. Make is a 'flags'
> parameter, assign a number of bits to the unshare functionality and
> leave the rest available. Use a 'f' suffix, perhaps. Then in future
> more bits can be defined and, if necessary, additional parameters can
> be added depending on set flags. The userspace prototypes can then if
> absolutely necessary be extended with an ellipsis. Not nice but not
> as bad as adding more and more intefaces.
How's that ?
int execvef(int flags, const char *filename, char *const argv [], char
*const envp[]);
initially, flags would be :
#define EXECVEF_NEWNS 0x00000100
#define EXECVEF_NEWIPC 0x00000200
#define EXECVEF_NEWUTS 0x00000400
#define EXECVEF_NEWUSER 0x00000800
execvef() would behave like execve() if flags == 0 and would return EINVAL
if flags is invalid. unshare of a namespace can fail and usually returns
ENOMEM.
C.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
