Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:32:26 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |