[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:
>> > #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.

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: 2006-07-12 02:27    [W:0.117 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site