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

Ulrich Drepper
2006-07-12T00:16:48Z

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.