On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:27:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:42 AM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hm, still pondering whether having one unsigned int argument passed > > through registers that captures all the flags from the old clone() would > > be a good idea. > > That sounds like a reasonable thing to do. > > Maybe we could continue to call the old flags CLONE_XYZ and continue > to pass them in as "flags" argument, and then we have CLONE_EXT_XYZ > flags for a new 64-bit flag field that comes in through memory in the > new clone_args thing? Hm. I think I'll try a first version without an additional register flags argument. And here's why: I'm not sure it buys us a lot especially if we're giving up on making this convenient for seccomp anyway. And with that out of the way (at least for the moment) I would really like to make this interface consistent. But we can revisit this when I have the code. Christian
