[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8441f497-61eb-5c14-bf1e-c90a464105a7@vivier.eu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 09:21:46 +0100
From: Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_misc: pass binfmt_misc P flag to the interpreter
Le 06/03/2020 à 09:13, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> * 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.
>
Not necessary, but it seemed simpler and cleaner to re-use a flag that
is marked as unused and with a name matching the new role. It avoids to
patch other packages (like glibc) to add it as it is already defined.
Thanks,
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists