[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1y53npd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 09:13:50 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: YunQiang Su <syq@...ian.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_misc: pass binfmt_misc P flag to the interpreter
* YunQiang Su:
> + if (bprm->interp_flags & BINPRM_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0)
> + flags |= AT_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0;
> + NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_FLAGS, flags);
Is it necessary to reuse AT_FLAGS? I think it's cleaner to define a
separate AT_ tag dedicated to binfmt_misc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists