In <E132MCs-00020U-00@the-village.bc.nu> Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
>> on some systems. Until recently Linux was among the systems where
>> this incorrect code happened to work.
>> Since the code is incorrect, it is protected by a DO_PS_FIDDLING
>> define in the mount source. One of these days I should turn this define
>> into something figured out by configure.
AC> I'd rather put the change back in for now so its back compatible. Especially
AC> since I've already had one kind person mail me the /dev/kmem alternative
AC> for Linux and that I do -not- want to encourage 8)
Oh, yeah.
Basically there are two questions:
1. What is "right way" to handle setptoctitle(3) ? Do we want to have
simple and safe to do it ?
2. What to do with existing hack in existing programs ?
If we want to keep existing binaries with hackish solution working we can
do it even with new syscalls (in this case argv[1] < argv[0]+strlen(argv[0])
thus you can catch it), so there are no dichotomy: you can add proper way to
do it and still keep existing hack working most of time (it'll not work in the
same situations when it does not work in 2.2).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:34 EST