[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40da389d-4e74-2644-2e7c-04d988fcc26f@vivier.eu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 12:13:41 +0100
From: Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: YunQiang Su <syq@...ian.org>, 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 09:37, Florian Weimer a écrit :
> * Laurent Vivier:
>
>> 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.
>
> You still need to define AT_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0. At that point, you
> might as well define AT_BINFMT and AT_BINFMT_PRESERVE_ARGV0.
>
Yes, you're right.
But is there any reason to not reuse AT_FLAGS?
Thanks,
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists