[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200608201501.29296.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:01:28 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return real errno from execve in ____call_usermodehelper
On Saturday 19 August 2006 10:42, Russell King wrote:
> Maybe what we should be thinking of doing is changing execve() calls
> to kernel_execve() which returns the error code.
>
> This way, architectures are free to implement execve() whatever way
> they wish - and if they're concerned about using errno, that's their
> own implementation specific detail.
Sounds good, it means we could finally kill __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__ along
with lib/errno.c.
I guess a fallback for those that haven't yet done kernel_execve could be
#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_KERNEL_EXECVE
extern int kernel_execve(const char *filename,
char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
#else
static inline int kernel_execve(const char *filename,
char *const argv[], char *const envp[]);
{
int errno;
mm_segment_t old_fs = get_fs();
set_fs(KERNEL_DS);
/* the kernel syscall macro modifies errno */
execve(filename, argv, envp);
set_fs(old_fs);
return errno;
}
#endif
With that in place, we can remove the global errno right away, and the
kernel syscalls for any architecture that implements its own kernel_execve.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists