![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
D. Hazelton wrote: > This is a bogus argument. You're comparing the way a _binary_ > executable works to the way an interpreted _text_ script works. > execve(), at least on my system, isn't capable of running a script - > if I want to do that from a program I have to tell execve() that it's > running /bin/sh and the script file is in the parameter list. This being the linux-kernel list, I assume your system is Linux, no? Well, on Linux, execve *does* support script files. This is the whole point of my patch - I would not propose a kernel patch to improve this support if it weren't there in the first place. > While I appreciate that the kernel is capable of performing complex > actions when execve runs into a file that is not an a.out or elf > binary I have yet to see a "binfmt script" option in the kernel > config files ever. It's not a config option because it is always enabled. See fs/binfmt_script.c for details. It wasn't integrated into the binfmt system until I made it so some ten years ago, though. > On the other hand, there is the "binfmt_misc" option, which does the > work that you seem to be looking for and can, AFAIK, be set to handle > both ASCII and UTF-8 scripts. Why add the complexity to the kernel > when it's not needed? One shouldn't add complexity if its not needed. However, this patch does not add complexity. It is fairly trivial. Regards, Martin - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-17 06:30 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||