On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 02:11:28AM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > This is horriby ugly.
>
> Detail why. The code of execvp()? Passing in the buffer?
> I'm not saying it's the brightest code around here, but it's ok for me.
My initial reaction was mostly due to the look of the code, which is
fixable. I also don't like carrying around bits of libc (although we
do have setjmp/longjmp, but that's a special case). However, it's
unlikely that it will need much maintenance, so this is more a taste
thing as well.
> I initially thought to design a two-steps API with a "which" operation (where
> memory allocation was used) to call later execvp(); when I saw the glibc
> implementation (it allocates one single fixed-size buffer) I saw it was
> simpler this way.
I think I still like the two-stage thing better. If the 'which' part
finds something that doesn't exec, then we can just spit out a nice error.
> I'd not do that at boot, but just before the fork()+execve() - it is
> conceivable that a given user will install a support binary after booting
> UML.
I was envisioning it being part of bootup, but doing it just before
the exec would be OK, too.
Jeff
-
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]
