[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156231742.21752.101.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:29:02 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace
__KERNEL_SYSCALLS__
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 17:12 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 21 August 2006 02:36, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > Iit turned out most of the architectures that already implement
> > > their own execve() call instead of using the _syscall3 function
> > > for it end up passing the return value of sys_execve down,
> > > instead of setting errno.
> >
> > I really don't like having an "errno" variable in the kernel. What if
> > two processes are doing an execve concurrently?
>
> The point is that we have two different schemes in the kernel that
> conflict:
>
> alpha, arm{,26}, ia64, parisc, powerpc and x86_64 pass the error
> code from execve, all others pass -1 and set the global errno.
All other need to be fixed then... having an errno is just plain wrong.
-
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