[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH signal#execve2] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call (v3)
OK, now that sys_execve() unification has settled down, let's get back
to this one. The real problem is what you are doing with bprm->filename
and bprm->interp; blind use of ->d_name is completely wrong.

For what it's worth, how should it work for e.g. shell scripts? That's
the main user of bprm->{filename,interp}, after all - other places are
either seriously exotic or are just using it for printks.

For shell scripts, however, these guys are really used - we have the original
argv[0] removed and <shell name> <optional argument> <filename> pushed in
its place.

How will it work with execveat()? If we have procfs in place, we can
cook an equivalent pathname (/proc/self/fd/<n>/<relative part of pathname>),
but then why not do just that in userland and be done with that?

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-06 18:02    [W:0.038 / U:3.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site