lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [uml-devel] [PATCH 04/10] uml: make execvp safe for our usage
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 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: 2006-10-25 17:15    [W:0.051 / U:1.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site