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

[Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> I would like give a strong objection to the naming.  The -ve() suffix in
> execve() isn't jettisonable; it indicates its position within a family
> of functions (only one of which is a true system call.)
> 
> execven() would be better name (the -n argument coming after then -e
> argument).  The library could then provide execlen(), execlpn() etc as
> appropriate.

I agree. execns() is a shortcut.

This service behaves like execve() if the flag argument is 0, so I guess we
should keep the execve- prefix. However, we could be a bit more explicit on
the nature of this service and call it execve_unshare().

thanks,

C.