Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:25:08 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace |
| |
Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On 7/11/06, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: >> > #define EXECVEF_NEWNS 0x00000100 >> > #define EXECVEF_NEWIPC 0x00000200 >> > #define EXECVEF_NEWUTS 0x00000400 >> > #define EXECVEF_NEWUSER 0x00000800 > > Yes on these. > > >> If flags comes first, I would rather like to call it execfve(), or >> perhaps execxve() ("extended") or execove() ("options"). execfve() >> sounds like it executes a file descriptor (which would probably be >> called fexecve()). > > I think execfve is fine. > > >> Perhaps more seriously, if we're adding more functionality already, it >> should acquire -at functionality (execveat) and take a directory >> argument. > > We have fexecve already. Adding -at variants is probably not the best > idea, it's confusing. Note, that fexecve only takes a file > descriptor, not a file descriptor plus file name. > > The only reason I could see for changing this is thatfexecve depends > on /proc. But there is so much other functionality which won't work > if /proc isn't mounted that I'd rank this low. I'm fine with just > adding execfve.
It seems to me to make a lot of sense to make it execveat(), then. That way it would provide the equivalent functionality of both execve() and fexecve(), plus additional functionality.
-hpa - 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/
| |