Re: [PATCHv7 0/3] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call

[Andrew Morton]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/