[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141112135009.5a887d200be262d94ba50495@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:50:09 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Meredydd Luff <meredydd@...atehouse.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 0/3] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 +0000 David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com> wrote:
> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86, and is derived from Meredydd
> Luff's patch from Sept 2012 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/11/528).
>
> The primary aim of adding an execveat syscall is to allow an
> implementation of fexecve(3) that does not rely on the /proc
> filesystem, at least for executables (rather than scripts). The
> current glibc version of fexecve(3) is implemented via /proc, which
> causes problems in sandboxed or otherwise restricted environments.
Have the relevant glibc people seen/reviewed/liked this?
--
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