05.07.2023 12:00, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
...
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c
index 08162cc966..4945ddd7f2 100644
--- a/linux-user/syscall.c
+++ b/linux-user/syscall.c
@@ -659,6 +659,7 @@ safe_syscall4(pid_t, wait4, pid_t, pid, int *, status, int,
options, \
#endif
safe_syscall5(int, waitid, idtype_t, idtype, id_t, id, siginfo_t *, infop, \
int, options, struct rusage *, rusage)
+safe_syscall3(int, execve, const char *, filename, char **, argv, char **,
envp)
safe_syscall5(int, execveat, int, dirfd, const char *, filename,
char **, argv, char **, envp, int, flags)
#if defined(TARGET_NR_select) || defined(TARGET_NR__newselect) || \
@@ -8615,9 +8616,9 @@ ssize_t do_guest_readlink(const char *pathname, char
*buf, size_t bufsiz)
return ret;
}
-static int do_execveat(CPUArchState *cpu_env, int dirfd,
- abi_long pathname, abi_long guest_argp,
- abi_long guest_envp, int flags)
+static int do_execv(CPUArchState *cpu_env, int dirfd,
+ abi_long pathname, abi_long guest_argp,
+ abi_long guest_envp, int flags, bool is_execveat)
{
int ret;
char **argp, **envp;
@@ -8696,11 +8697,14 @@ static int do_execveat(CPUArchState *cpu_env, int dirfd,
goto execve_efault;
}
+ const char* exe = p;
if (is_proc_myself(p, "exe")) {
- ret = get_errno(safe_execveat(dirfd, exec_path, argp, envp, flags));
- } else {
- ret = get_errno(safe_execveat(dirfd, p, argp, envp, flags));
+ exe = exec_path;
}
+ ret = is_execveat ?
+ safe_execveat(dirfd, exe, argp, envp, flags):
+ safe_execve(exe, argp, envp);
+ ret = get_errno(ret);
This one has 2 issues reported by checkpatch.pl:
$ git show | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
ERROR: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
#161: FILE: linux-user/syscall.c:8700:
+ const char* exe = p;
ERROR: spaces required around that ':' (ctx:VxE)
#169: FILE: linux-user/syscall.c:8705:
+ safe_execveat(dirfd, exe, argp, envp, flags):
^
total: 2 errors, 0 warnings, 47 lines checked
Your patch has style problems, please review. If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.
As I mentioned in the v1, I don't remember offhand how the arithmetic if
should be styled in qemu. At the very best, the v2 variant is difficult
to read because ":" is too close to ";" visually, an extra space before
it will make it more explicit.
Other than that, I'm fine with this version.
With the checkpatch issues fixed,
Reviewed-by: Michael Tokarev <[email protected]>
Thanks,
/mjt
