From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-84470-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 58854 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2017 20:38:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 58844 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2017 20:38:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 20:38:00 -0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
CC: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Use execveat syscall in fexecve
In-Reply-To: <2a21b0d6-5f62-a711-2b4a-616ebb798963@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709112035390.29946@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <mvm8thqdgj1.fsf@suse.de> <87bmmmlpe1.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <mvmr2vdbkky.fsf_-_@suse.de> <2a21b0d6-5f62-a711-2b4a-616ebb798963@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To
 svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1)
X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:

> > +# ifndef __ASSUME_EXECVEAT
> > +  if (errno != ENOSYS)
> > +    return -1;
> > +# endif
> > +#endif
> 
> Do we really need to add another __ASSUME_* that eventually we will need to
> cleanup? Can't we just check fo __NR_execvat, call it and if it fails with
> ENOSYS use the current code as fallback?  The drawback would be that the
> fallback code would be mainly dead code for newer kernels.

We have the ENOSYS code there and the subsequent fallback that will 
eventually need cleaning up *anyway*.  Having the __ASSUME_* macro makes 
it obvious in future exactly what changes should be made for the cleanup 
and exactly when it is possible to do that cleanup.  I think having such 
macros for any case with fallback code that can be cleaned up in future is 
a good idea for that reason.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com