Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2018-01-09 Thread Samuel Thibault
I read that part a bit too fast Samuel Thibault, on mar. 09 janv. 2018 13:00:44 +0100, wrote: > Ludovic Courtès, on mar. 09 janv. 2018 12:57:40 +0100, wrote: > > Samuel Thibault skribis: > > > > > For non-Debian distributions, you may want > > > to pick up the hurd exec_filename_ patches from >

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2018-01-09 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, on mar. 09 janv. 2018 13:00:44 +0100, wrote: > Ludovic Courtès, on mar. 09 janv. 2018 12:57:40 +0100, wrote: > > Also, now that you’re a glibc maintainer for the Hurd part, what would > > you think of doing a “mass commit” (with a lightweight re-review > > process) of all the patch

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2018-01-09 Thread Samuel Thibault
Ludovic Courtès, on mar. 09 janv. 2018 12:57:40 +0100, wrote: > Samuel Thibault skribis: > > > For non-Debian distributions, you may want > > to pick up the hurd exec_filename_ patches from > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-hurd/hurd.git/tree/debian/patches > > and the local-exec_filename.di

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2018-01-09 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello! Samuel Thibault skribis: > For non-Debian distributions, you may want > to pick up the hurd exec_filename_ patches from > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-hurd/hurd.git/tree/debian/patches > and the local-exec_filename.diff patch from > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-glibc/glibc.gi

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2018-01-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Better late than never :) I got triggered by an issue which was making both mig and gnumach fail to build from source :) which was triggered by Svante's turning the exec() paths into absolute, which made shellscripts' $0 always absolute. So I rolled up my sleeves, I changes the RPC a bit t

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-22 Thread Roland McGrath
I am still not convinced this is the ideal solution for Hurdiness. But I'm not putting the time and effort into figuring out other alternatives and what's adequate for what needs. You shouldn't let me stand in the way of Hurd design changes, since I'm not actually working on it this decade. If th

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Roland, could you have a look? This is really posing problems. Samuel Thibault, le Fri 11 Apr 2014 09:03:03 +0200, a écrit : As a reminder, here is the issue: “ $ cat bar #!/bin/sh echo "\$0: $0" $ cat foo.c ... char *arg[] = { argv[1], NULL }; execv (*arg, arg);

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-11 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, As a reminder, here is the issue: “ $ cat bar #!/bin/sh echo "\$0: $0" $ cat foo.c ... char *arg[] = { argv[1], NULL }; execv (*arg, arg); perror ("execv"); ... $ ./foo ./bar $0: ./bar $ ./foo bar $0: /dev/fd/3 Having /dev/fd/N in $0 instead of the real file name

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-08 Thread Justus Winter
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-04-08 13:50:28) > Justus Winter, le Tue 08 Apr 2014 13:46:26 +0200, a écrit : > > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-04-08 02:18:13) > > > Well, I'm not the one to be convinced: it's only Roland which can ack > > > the glibc part, and thus the whole idea of the RPC addition

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-08 Thread Samuel Thibault
Justus Winter, le Tue 08 Apr 2014 13:46:26 +0200, a écrit : > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-04-08 02:18:13) > > Well, I'm not the one to be convinced: it's only Roland which can ack > > the glibc part, and thus the whole idea of the RPC addition. One "just" > > needs to explain him why we really n

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-08 Thread Justus Winter
Hi, Quoting Samuel Thibault (2014-04-08 02:18:13) > Well, I'm not the one to be convinced: it's only Roland which can ack > the glibc part, and thus the whole idea of the RPC addition. One "just" > needs to explain him why we really need it. I thought that this patch series was necessary for fak

Re: Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-07 Thread Samuel Thibault
Well, I'm not the one to be convinced: it's only Roland which can ack the glibc part, and thus the whole idea of the RPC addition. One "just" needs to explain him why we really need it. Samuel

[PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-07 Thread Justus Winter
From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort This is Emilios patch, slightly amended so that the code in hashexec.c actually uses the provided name. This makes it work in a fakerooted environment. * hurd/exec.defs (exec_exec_file_name): New RPC. (exec_exec): Label as deprecated. * doc/hurd.texi: Updated. * exe

Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2014-04-07 Thread Justus Winter
Hi :) this is a rebased patch series created by Emilio Pozuelo Monfort. I've slightly amended the first patch. This patch series makes the fakeroot translator usable, more precisely the execution of interpreted scripts within the fakeroot environment. Both the patch series and my amendment have r

[PATCH 1/4] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2011-08-17 Thread Jeremie Koenig
From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort * hurd/exec.defs (exec_exec_file_name): New RPC. (exec_exec): Label as deprecated. * doc/hurd.texi: Updated. * exec/exec.c (S_exec_exec_file_name): New function. (S_exec_exec): Label as deprecated. (do_exec): Add argument. * exec/hashexec.c (check_hashbang): Add argum

[PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-08-04 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
And these are the Hurd patches. Regards, Emilio >From 011df9d35eb68132cdb14a0f55e2435375e2cfce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 00:15:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC * hurd/exec.defs (exec_exec_file_name): New

[PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-07-26 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
>From 234eb51c6b8184c6785512852eb0b3be6244c783 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 00:15:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC * hurd/exec.defs (exec_exec_file_name): New RPC. (exec_exec): Label as deprecated. * doc/hurd.t

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-07-19 Thread Carl Fredrik Hammar
about the commit messages. > >From 48515284b0f876094d50bfd6a7825b8815f125b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 00:15:37 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC > > * hurd/exec.defs (exec_exec_file

[PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-07-16 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
nds good. > >> Regarding version.h, I've bumped HURD_INTERFACE_VERSION in 0001 for >> exec_exec_file_name, but should it be bumped in 0002 too? > > This sounds good to me but if someone else objects you should change it. I've put it in a separate patch as you said in you

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-02 Thread Carl Fredrik Hammar
Hi, On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:00:13AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@web.de wrote: > Keep in mind that this convention stems from a time where people > actually used to *print* code, on a 80 column line printer... So it was > important to strictly observe the limit back then. Nowadays, screens are > larg

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread Samuel Thibault
Roland McGrath, le Tue 01 Jun 2010 16:22:57 -0700, a écrit : > I am not convinced that this is worth doing. Any name from anywhere is > always just a guess at what might be the right file name. There will > always be cases where you can't manage to guess it. That's why at least in the cases wher

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 02/06/10 01:22, Roland McGrath wrote: > I am not convinced that this is worth doing. Any name from anywhere is > always just a guess at what might be the right file name. There will > always be cases where you can't manage to guess it. It is only a guess for > convenience when not secure, aft

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread Roland McGrath
I am not convinced that this is worth doing. Any name from anywhere is always just a guess at what might be the right file name. There will always be cases where you can't manage to guess it. It is only a guess for convenience when not secure, after all. With fexecve, there isn't even any such

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
Hi Roland, On 02/06/10 00:29, Roland McGrath wrote: > wrt new RPC: sorry, I skipped the earlier discussion. > What is this for? No problem. Let me quote myself: > Basically the problem is that in some cases the exec server can't find the > file > name of the file being executed (when it's a scr

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread Roland McGrath
wrt 80 columns max: just do it. wrt new RPC: sorry, I skipped the earlier discussion. What is this for? Thanks, Roland

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 03:52:59AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:59:09PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > > > Break these two lines. Try to stick to less than 76 columns or > > >

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-06-01 Thread Carl Fredrik Hammar
Hi, On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 03:52:59AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:59:09PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:15:37AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > > +kern_return_t > > > +S_exec_exec_file_name (struct trivfs_protid

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-05-31 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:59:09PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:15:37AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > +kern_return_t > > +S_exec_exec_file_name (struct trivfs_protid *protid, > > + file_t file, > > + task_t oldtask

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-05-31 Thread Carl Fredrik Hammar
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:15:37AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > diff --git a/exec/exec.c b/exec/exec.c > index 272b789..6b0f721 100644 > --- a/exec/exec.c > +++ b/exec/exec.c > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > /* GNU Hurd standard exec server. > - Copyright (C) 1992,93,94,95,96,98,99,2000,01,02,04 >

[PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

2010-05-27 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
--- doc/hurd.texi |8 exec/exec.c | 44 exec/hashexec.c | 10 +++--- exec/priv.h |3 ++- hurd/exec.defs | 18 -- hurd/version.h |2 +- 6 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --