Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:10:24 -0400 | From | Jeff Dike <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |