Re: [issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-06-01 Thread Dennis Clarke
On 05/30/2016 06:12 PM, Марк Коренберг wrote: Марк Коренберг added the comment: It is actual to me due to it's AT_EMPTY_PATH feature (I download script, verify signature, and want to run it) See also `man 3 fexecve` Why not to add `dir_fd=None` ? (as in `os.rmdir()` for example). It should

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-05-31 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray added the comment: Yes, last paragraph of that section. It doesn't mention fexecve explicitly because it doesn't need to, the functionality is what matters. -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-05-30 Thread Марк Коренберг
Марк Коренберг added the comment: Sorry, but still did not found that in official documentation. Pass fd in place of `path ` ? https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/os.html#os.execve -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-05-30 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray added the comment: By passing an fd to os.execve. Under the hood it calls fexecve. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Pyth

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-05-30 Thread Марк Коренберг
Марк Коренберг added the comment: > we are already effectvely exposing fexecve Did not found neither os.fexecve() nor os.execve() documentation about this. How I can use glibc's fexecve() ? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-05-30 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray added the comment: You can currently call os.execve with a file pointer. How is that different from adding an execveat with AS_EMPTY_PATH, functionally? I think we don't need to add this syscall, because it is intended to allow more robust implementation of fexecve, and we ar

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2016-05-30 Thread Марк Коренберг
Марк Коренберг added the comment: It is actual to me due to it's AT_EMPTY_PATH feature (I download script, verify signature, and want to run it) See also `man 3 fexecve` Why not to add `dir_fd=None` ? (as in `os.rmdir()` for example). It should be very small patch, as I think. Reopen please

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2015-04-06 Thread STINNER Victor
STINNER Victor added the comment: I'm not more interested to work on this issue, so I just close it. I'm not convinced that there is a real need for it in Python, and it's not obvious how it should be exposed. Open a new issue or reopen this issue if you want to work the issue. -- res

[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall

2015-02-13 Thread STINNER Victor
New submission from STINNER Victor: execveat() was added to Linux in kernel 3.19: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/execveat.2.html It may be interesting to expose it in Python. "The primary aim of adding an execveat syscall is to allow an implementation of fexecve(3) that does not rely on t