Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/16 08:54:45:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:11:48PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/15 16:12:26:
> > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:38:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> > > > > On
Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/16 08:54:45:
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:11:48PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/15 16:12:26:
> > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:38:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> > > > > On
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 05:11:48PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/15 16:12:26:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:38:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> > > > On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > The p
Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/15 16:12:26:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:38:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> > > On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > The popular binfmt-wrapper patch adds an additional
> > > > executable which mang
Riku Voipio wrote on 2014/07/15 16:12:26:
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:38:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> > > On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > The popular binfmt-wrapper patch adds an additional
> > > > executable which m
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 05:38:49PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> > On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > The popular binfmt-wrapper patch adds an additional
> > > executable which mangle argv suitable for binfmt flag P.
> > > In a chroot
On 14.07.14 19:08, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:54:27:
0 is a valid fd :). And yes, this would work, but I don't see why we
should introduce the -binfmt-wrapper logic to upstream QEMU. It's never
been there. And the AT_EXECFD evaluation is a lot cleaner.
While
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:54:27:
>
> 0 is a valid fd :). And yes, this would work, but I don't see why we
> should introduce the -binfmt-wrapper logic to upstream QEMU. It's never
> been there. And the AT_EXECFD evaluation is a lot cleaner.
>
> While we're at it - should we also pa
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:54:27:
>
>
> On 14.07.14 18:51, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:34:34:
> >>
> >> On 14.07.14 18:32, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >>> Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:35:
> >>> You think everyone feel OK with new defau
On 14.07.14 18:51, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:34:34:
On 14.07.14 18:32, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:35:
You think everyone feel OK with new defaults like OP ?
Yes.
hmm, with current qemu it works to boot a LXC with ju
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:34:34:
>
>
> On 14.07.14 18:32, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:35:
> > You think everyone feel OK with new defaults like OP ?
> >> Yes.
> > hmm, with current qemu it works to boot a LXC with just O flag.
> > Why would w
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:34:34:
>
>
> On 14.07.14 18:32, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:35:
> > You think everyone feel OK with new defaults like OP ?
> >> Yes.
> > hmm, with current qemu it works to boot a LXC with just O flag.
> > Why would w
On 14.07.14 18:32, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:35:
You think everyone feel OK with new defaults like OP ?
Yes.
hmm, with current qemu it works to boot a LXC with just O flag.
Why would we then want to complicate things by adding OP which
then requires some
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:35:
>
>
> On 14.07.14 17:59, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:46:18:
> >>
> >> On 14.07.14 17:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >>> Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> >>>
> From: Alexander Graf
> To: J
Peter Maydell wrote on 2014/07/14 18:00:38:
>
> On 14 July 2014 16:59, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
> > scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh does not use any flag currently, I don't
think
> > that works either with current linux-user and choot/lxc
>
> That script is pretty awful and no sane distro is going
On 14 July 2014 16:59, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> scripts/qemu-binfmt-conf.sh does not use any flag currently, I don't think
> that works either with current linux-user and choot/lxc
That script is pretty awful and no sane distro is going to use
it anyhow...
-- PMM
On 14.07.14 17:59, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:46:18:
On 14.07.14 17:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
From: Alexander Graf
To: Joakim Tjernlund ,
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Date: 2014/07/14 17:21
Subject: Re: [PATCH
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:46:18:
>
>
> On 14.07.14 17:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> >
> >> From: Alexander Graf
> >> To: Joakim Tjernlund ,
> >> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> >> Date: 2014/07/14 17:21
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux-us
On 14.07.14 17:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
From: Alexander Graf
To: Joakim Tjernlund ,
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Date: 2014/07/14 17:21
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux-user: Add binfmt wrapper
On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
The popular b
Alexander Graf wrote on 2014/07/14 17:21:33:
> From: Alexander Graf
> To: Joakim Tjernlund ,
> Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Date: 2014/07/14 17:21
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux-user: Add binfmt wrapper
>
>
> On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > The popular binfmt-wrapper patch adds an
On 14.07.14 16:38, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
The popular binfmt-wrapper patch adds an additional
executable which mangle argv suitable for binfmt flag P.
In a chroot you need the both (statically linked) qemu-$arch
and qemu-$arch-binfmt-wrapper. This is sub optimal and a
better approach is to reco
The popular binfmt-wrapper patch adds an additional
executable which mangle argv suitable for binfmt flag P.
In a chroot you need the both (statically linked) qemu-$arch
and qemu-$arch-binfmt-wrapper. This is sub optimal and a
better approach is to recognize the -binfmt-wrapper extension
within lin
On 31.10.2011, at 12:16, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 08:08:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> When using qemu's linux-user binaries through binfmt, argv[0] gets lost
>>> along the execution because qemu only gets passed in the full file name
>>> to the executable while argv[0
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 08:08:39PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > When using qemu's linux-user binaries through binfmt, argv[0] gets lost
> > along the execution because qemu only gets passed in the full file name
> > to the executable while argv[0] can be something completely different.
> >
> >
On 30.09.2011, at 19:46, Alexander Graf wrote:
> When using qemu's linux-user binaries through binfmt, argv[0] gets lost
> along the execution because qemu only gets passed in the full file name
> to the executable while argv[0] can be something completely different.
>
> This breaks in some subt
When using qemu's linux-user binaries through binfmt, argv[0] gets lost
along the execution because qemu only gets passed in the full file name
to the executable while argv[0] can be something completely different.
This breaks in some subtile situations, such as the grep and make test
suites.
Thi
26 matches
Mail list logo
