Re: [PATCH] [RFC] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call (v2)

[Meredydd Luff]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This means you need an x32 version of the function -- execve
>> unfortunately is one of the few system calls which require a special x32
>> version (although it's a simple wrapper around sys32_execve).  See
>> sys_x32_execve.
>
> I *really* strongly object to doing that thing before we sanitize the
> situation with sys_execve().

"That thing" = "creating an x32 entry stub", or "merging execveat() at all"?

(snip)
> The thing is, there's essentially no reason to have more than one
> implementation.  What they are (badly) doing is "we need to find
> pt_regs to pass to do_execve(), the thing we are after has to be near
> our stack frame, so let's try to get to it that way".

Hang on...it's not just sys_execve that fits that description, is it?
You seem to be describing every call that needs a pt_regs parameter,
which at a glance is anything with a stub_ or PTREGSCALL in
arch/x86/kernel/entry_{32,64}.S. That's: clone, fork, vfork,
sigaltstack, iopl, execve, sigreturn, rt_sigreturn, vm86, vm86old.
Most of those are handled by a common PTREGSCALL macro, but there are
a few that get special treatment (different set on each arch - on
x86-64 it's execve and rt_sigreturn ; on i386 it's just clone).

Is there's something special about execve in particular, or do you
want to overhaul all the ptregscalls?

Meredydd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/