Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> wrote: > On 04/11, Eric Wong wrote: > > Hi Brandon, this series tickles an old itch of mine, so I > > started working off of it. I'm only somewhat concerned > > with the path resolution in execvp(e) pontentially calling > > malloc on some libcs; but I suppose that's a separate patch > > for another time. > > > > Only lightly-tested at the moment, but things seem to work... > > Thanks Eric! I'll spend some time looking at this patch later today. As > for the path resolution in execvp(e), I guess we could completely avoid > that if we did the path resolution ourselves, prior to forking, and then > just use execv(e) since it shouldn't have any calls to malloc in them > correct?
Yeah. I spent some time looking at it last night, but emulating the existing ENOENT / EACCESS / ENOTDIR mapping made my head hurt. And I'm not sure if I introduced any off-by-one errors in exists_in_PATH when removing strbuf usage; string manipulation in plain C scares me :x Since memcpy/strcpy/getenv in there are not specified as async-signal safe, they could theoretically take locks and cause breakage inside a child. I also wonder if there's a way to annotate internal functions as async-signal safe (and thus vfork-child safe) besides sprinkling comments in certain functions like xwrite.
