This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] binfmt_misc: pass binfmt_misc P flag to the interpreter
- From: Laurent Vivier <laurent at vivier dot eu>
- To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- Cc: YunQiang Su <syq at debian dot org>, torvalds at linux-foundation dot org, gregkh at linuxfoundation dot org, akpm at linux-foundation dot org, viro at zeniv dot linux dot org dot uk, James dot Bottomley at hansenpartnership dot com, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 12:13:41 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] binfmt_misc: pass binfmt_misc P flag to the interpreter
- References: <20200306080905.173466-1-syq@debian.org> <87r1y53npd.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <8441f497-61eb-5c14-bf1e-c90a464105a7@vivier.eu> <87mu8t3mlw.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
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