On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:42:58 + David Drysdale wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 + David Drysdale
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86, and is derived from Meredydd
> >> Luff's patch from Sept 2012 (h
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 + David Drysdale wrote:
>
>> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86
>
> I grabbed these. If someone else was planning to do so, feel free to
> shout at me.
>
> I haven't been following the discussion close
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 + David Drysdale wrote:
>
>> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86, and is derived from Meredydd
>> Luff's patch from Sept 2012 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/11/528).
>>
>> The primary aim of adding an exec
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 + David Drysdale wrote:
> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86
I grabbed these. If someone else was planning to do so, feel free to
shout at me.
I haven't been following the discussion closely so some reviewed-by's
and tested-by's would be nice.
Thanks for
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:01:01 + David Drysdale wrote:
> This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86, and is derived from Meredydd
> Luff's patch from Sept 2012 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/11/528).
>
> The primary aim of adding an execveat syscall is to allow an
> implementation of fexecve(3) th
This patch set adds execveat(2) for x86, and is derived from Meredydd
Luff's patch from Sept 2012 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/11/528).
The primary aim of adding an execveat syscall is to allow an
implementation of fexecve(3) that does not rely on the /proc
filesystem, at least for executables (
6 matches
Mail list logo
