lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] binfmt_misc: pass binfmt_misc P flag to the interpreter
Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> 于2020年3月6日周五 下午7:13写道:
>
> Le 06/03/2020 à 09:37, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> > * Laurent Vivier:
> >
> >> Le 06/03/2020 à 09:13, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> >>> * YunQiang Su:
> >>>
> >>>> + if (bprm->interp_flags & BINPRM_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0)
> >>>> + flags |= AT_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0;
> >>>> + NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_FLAGS, flags);
> >>>
> >>> Is it necessary to reuse AT_FLAGS? I think it's cleaner to define a
> >>> separate AT_ tag dedicated to binfmt_misc.
> >>
> >> Not necessary, but it seemed simpler and cleaner to re-use a flag that
> >> is marked as unused and with a name matching the new role. It avoids to
> >> patch other packages (like glibc) to add it as it is already defined.
> >
> > You still need to define AT_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0. At that point, you
> > might as well define AT_BINFMT and AT_BINFMT_PRESERVE_ARGV0.
> >
>
> Yes, you're right.
>
> But is there any reason to not reuse AT_FLAGS?

AT_* only has 32 slot and now. I was afraid that maybe we shouldn't take one.
/* AT_* values 18 through 22 are reserved */
27,28,29,30 are not used now.
Which should we use?

>
> Thanks,
> Laurent

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-06 12:31    [W:0.055 / U:2.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site