Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace

H. Peter Anvin
2006-07-12T00:25:22Z

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On 7/11/06, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>> > #define EXECVEF_NEWNS 0x00000100
>> > #define EXECVEF_NEWIPC 0x00000200
>> > #define EXECVEF_NEWUTS 0x00000400
>> > #define EXECVEF_NEWUSER 0x00000800
>
> Yes on these.
>
>
>> If flags comes first, I would rather like to call it execfve(), or
>> perhaps execxve() ("extended") or execove() ("options"). execfve()
>> sounds like it executes a file descriptor (which would probably be
>> called fexecve()).
>
> I think execfve is fine.
>
>
>> Perhaps more seriously, if we're adding more functionality already, it
>> should acquire -at functionality (execveat) and take a directory
>> argument.
>
> We have fexecve already. Adding -at variants is probably not the best
> idea, it's confusing. Note, that fexecve only takes a file
> descriptor, not a file descriptor plus file name.
>
> The only reason I could see for changing this is thatfexecve depends
> on /proc. But there is so much other functionality which won't work
> if /proc isn't mounted that I'd rank this low. I'm fine with just
> adding execfve.

It seems to me to make a lot of sense to make it execveat(), then. That
way it would provide the equivalent functionality of both execve() and
fexecve(), plus additional functionality.

-hpa