Laurent Vivier <laurent@xxxxxxxxx> 于2020年3月6日周五 下午7:13写道： > > 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? AT_* only has 32 slot and now. I was afraid that maybe we shouldn't take one. /* AT_* values 18 through 22 are reserved */ 27,28,29,30 are not used now. Which should we use? > > Thanks, > Laurent
