On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 05:17:28PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > Back then the procfs-free environments had been pushed as a serious argument > > in favour of merging the damn thing. Now you guys turn around and say that > > we not only need procfs mounted, we need a yet-to-be-added kludge in there > > to cope with the actual intended uses. > > Reverting does not fix the problem. There is no way to make fexecve > work for scripts without kernel support, and the needed kernel support > without fexecve would be even nastier, since handling of /proc/self/fd > magic-symlinks would need to be special-cased. The added fexecveat > syscall supports fully /proc-less operation for non-scripts. Oh, yes it does. It's not *our* problem if it's out of tree and not a part of ABI. That way if you need it, *you* get to come up with clean implementation. If it's in-tree you get leverage to push ugly kludges further in. And frankly, I don't trust you to abstain from using that leverage in rather nasty ways. Out of curiosity, how would you expect that "open only once" to work? All reliable variants I see are beyond sick... -- 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
