lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [RFC] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call (v2)
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> This means you need an x32 version of the function -- execve
>> unfortunately is one of the few system calls which require a special x32
>> version (although it's a simple wrapper around sys32_execve). See
>> sys_x32_execve.
>
> I *really* strongly object to doing that thing before we sanitize the
> situation with sys_execve().

"That thing" = "creating an x32 entry stub", or "merging execveat() at all"?

(snip)
> The thing is, there's essentially no reason to have more than one
> implementation. What they are (badly) doing is "we need to find
> pt_regs to pass to do_execve(), the thing we are after has to be near
> our stack frame, so let's try to get to it that way".

Hang on...it's not just sys_execve that fits that description, is it?
You seem to be describing every call that needs a pt_regs parameter,
which at a glance is anything with a stub_ or PTREGSCALL in
arch/x86/kernel/entry_{32,64}.S. That's: clone, fork, vfork,
sigaltstack, iopl, execve, sigreturn, rt_sigreturn, vm86, vm86old.
Most of those are handled by a common PTREGSCALL macro, but there are
a few that get special treatment (different set on each arch - on
x86-64 it's execve and rt_sigreturn ; on i386 it's just clone).

Is there's something special about execve in particular, or do you
want to overhaul all the ptregscalls?

Meredydd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-02 11:42    [W:0.066 / U:0.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site