[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] status of execve() work - per-architecture patches solicited
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 05:50:34PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:

> Hi Al,
> It must be noted that despite having seemingly independent
> __ARCH_WANT_(KERNEL|SYS)_EXECVE, arches which have a kernel syscall trap
> based kernel_execve(), e.g. MIPS, can't implement __ARCH_WANT_SYS_EXECVE
> alone - they need to first convert
> to __ARCH_WANT_KERNEL_EXECVE as well (although it probably doesn't make
> sense for anyone to just implement one - but in terms of staging -
> having only one, breaks stuff IMHO).

Of course - that's the reason for kernel_execve() being pulled into the
mix at all. Unified sys_execve() relies on not using a trap to do
kernel_execve(); it's not exactly the same thing as having it done
by generic instance in fs/exec.c (e.g. some architectures were already
doing it that way, with their own instances, some in asm glue, some
in C) but it is a prerequisite.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-19 16:01    [W:0.111 / U:3.508 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site