On 2006.08.22 17:29:02 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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.
I'm working on a patch loosely based on Arnd's that changes the
in-kernel syscall macros to directly return the error codes. Once
kernel_execve is implemented for each arch, only um should remain as a
user and I found only two calls there that care about the exact
non-zero return value, both are simple to adapt.
That should allow to get rid of errno completely. If someone knows a
reason why this is destined to fail (maybe syscalls returning char?!),
please let me know before I waste too much time on it ;)
Björn
-
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]
