Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 17:12 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 21 August 2006 02:36, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > Iit turned out most of the architectures that already implement
> > > their own execve() call instead of using the _syscall3 function
> > > for it end up passing the return value of sys_execve down, 
> > > instead of setting errno.
> > 
> > I really don't like having an "errno" variable in the kernel.  What if
> > two processes are doing an execve concurrently?
> 
> The point is that we have two different schemes in the kernel that
> conflict:
> 
> alpha, arm{,26}, ia64, parisc, powerpc and x86_64 pass the error
> code from execve, all others pass -1 and set the global errno.

All other need to be fixed then... having an errno is just plain wrong.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/