Rich Felker <dal...@aerifal.cx> writes: > I'm not proposing code because I'm a libc developer not a kernel > developer. I know what's needed for userspace to provide a conforming > fexecve to applications, not how to implement that on the kernel side, > although I'm trying to provide constructive ideas. The hostility is > really not necessary.
Conforming to what? The open group fexecve says nothing about requiring a file descriptor passed to fexecve to have O_CLOEXEC. Further looking at open group specification of exec it seems to indicate the preferred way to handle this is for the kernel to return O_NOEXEC and then libc gets to figure out how to run the shell script. Is that the kind of ``conforming'' implementation you are looking for? Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
