Ulrich Drepper wrote:
On 7/11/06, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
> #define EXECVEF_NEWNS 0x00000100
> #define EXECVEF_NEWIPC 0x00000200
> #define EXECVEF_NEWUTS 0x00000400
> #define EXECVEF_NEWUSER 0x00000800
Yes on these.
If flags comes first, I would rather like to call it execfve(), or
perhaps execxve() ("extended") or execove() ("options"). execfve()
sounds like it executes a file descriptor (which would probably be
called fexecve()).
I think execfve is fine.
Perhaps more seriously, if we're adding more functionality already, it
should acquire -at functionality (execveat) and take a directory
argument.
We have fexecve already. Adding -at variants is probably not the best
idea, it's confusing. Note, that fexecve only takes a file
descriptor, not a file descriptor plus file name.
The only reason I could see for changing this is thatfexecve depends
on /proc. But there is so much other functionality which won't work
if /proc isn't mounted that I'd rank this low. I'm fine with just
adding execfve.
It seems to me to make a lot of sense to make it execveat(), then. That
way it would provide the equivalent functionality of both execve() and
fexecve(), plus additional functionality.
-hpa
-
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]
