2 messages, 2 authors, 2020-03-06 · open the first message on its own page
From: Florian Weimer <hidden>
Date: 2020-03-06 08:15:44
* YunQiang Su:
+ if (bprm->interp_flags & BINPRM_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0) + flags |= AT_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0; + NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_FLAGS, flags);
Is it necessary to reuse AT_FLAGS? I think it's cleaner to define a separate AT_ tag dedicated to binfmt_misc.
From: Laurent Vivier <hidden>
Date: 2020-03-06 08:22:07
Le 06/03/2020 à 09:13, Florian Weimer a écrit :
* YunQiang Su:quoted
+ if (bprm->interp_flags & BINPRM_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0) + flags |= AT_FLAGS_PRESERVE_ARGV0; + NEW_AUX_ENT(AT_FLAGS, flags);Is it necessary to reuse AT_FLAGS? I think it's cleaner to define a separate AT_ tag dedicated to binfmt_misc.
Not necessary, but it seemed simpler and cleaner to re-use a flag that is marked as unused and with a name matching the new role. It avoids to patch other packages (like glibc) to add it as it is already defined. Thanks, Laurent