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
