[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace
    Ulrich Drepper wrote:
    > On 7/11/06, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
    >> How about execveu()? -n looked a bit weird to me, mostly because the
    >> "le" form would be execlen() which looks like something completely
    >> different...
    > I would prefer a more general parameter. With this extension it is
    > expected to have six new interfaces. I really don't want to repeat
    > this if somebody comes up with yet another nice extension.
    > So, how about generalizing the parameter. Make is a 'flags'
    > parameter, assign a number of bits to the unshare functionality and
    > leave the rest available. Use a 'f' suffix, perhaps. Then in future
    > more bits can be defined and, if necessary, additional parameters can
    > be added depending on set flags. The userspace prototypes can then if
    > absolutely necessary be extended with an ellipsis. Not nice but not
    > as bad as adding more and more intefaces.

    How's that ?

    int execvef(int flags, const char *filename, char *const argv [], char
    *const envp[]);

    initially, flags would be :

    #define EXECVEF_NEWNS 0x00000100
    #define EXECVEF_NEWIPC 0x00000200
    #define EXECVEF_NEWUTS 0x00000400
    #define EXECVEF_NEWUSER 0x00000800

    execvef() would behave like execve() if flags == 0 and would return EINVAL
    if flags is invalid. unshare of a namespace can fail and usually returns

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-11 23:55    [W:0.020 / U:8.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site