On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:42:58 +0000 David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 +0000 David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86, and is derived from Meredydd > >> Luff's patch from Sept 2012 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/11/528). > >> > >> The primary aim of adding an execveat syscall is to allow an > >> implementation of fexecve(3) that does not rely on the /proc > >> filesystem, at least for executables (rather than scripts). The > >> current glibc version of fexecve(3) is implemented via /proc, which > >> causes problems in sandboxed or otherwise restricted environments. > > > > Have the relevant glibc people seen/reviewed/liked this? > > I think it's been mentioned in passing but not explicitly discussed over there > (https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00497.html, > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-10/msg00509.html) > and a couple of the participants in that thread (Christoph Hellwig, Rich Felker) > were also cc:ed here. > > It sounded like execveat might be useful for another feature (O_EXEC) but > I'm not sure whether that amounts to the relevant glibc folk liking this... OK. Could you please try to hunt down the appropriate people and give them a poke? We'd be in a mess if we merged this then glibc didn't use it, or glibc developers required/suggested any interface modifications. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
