On 1 September 2014 09:51, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > Il 29/08/2014 20:01, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> [cc'ing MJT for more distro opinion since I think fundamentally >> the choice we ought to make upstream is "what's not going to >> screw over distros"... Paolo, is there a RedHat QEMU maintainer >> who would have an opinion here?] > > There's Cole Robinson. > > BTW, Fedora doesn't use the binfmt scripts from QEMU
That's ok, nobody with any sense doesn't. >, but does reuse the > binfmt lines. We'd just add Ps and we'd be fine. But this would break all your existing users' existing chroot setups. That's the question I'm after an answer to: what do you (as a distro) think would be acceptable as transitional breakage, if anything? > However, the problem is not really for distros. Packagers just read the > release notes and adjust whatever needs to be adjusted. The problem is > for people who compile from source and are bit by conflicting binfmt > formats from their distro. This is one reason I like the "one binary name for O and one for P" approach. > The solution could be to extend binfmt_misc so that it sets two > environment variables BINFMT_MISC_PID and BINFMT_MISC_ORIG_ARGV0. The > former is set to the pid of the binfmt "interpreter" program, the latter > to the argv[0] value. Then QEMU can check if BINFMT_MISC_PID matches > getpid() and, if so, trust the BINFMT_MISC_ORIG_ARGV0 value. Certainly if we're in a position to get the kernel to be more informative about how it invoked us that would be the ideal. thanks -- PMM
