Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user: add option to intercept execve() syscalls

[Petros Angelatos]

All raised issues fixed, I just sent v2 :)

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 22/01/2016 11:47, Peter Maydell a écrit :
>> On 22 January 2016 at 10:33, Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Le 22/01/2016 11:01, Petros Angelatos a écrit :
>>>> This was my initial approach too, but argv[0] can be just the filename
>>>> like "qemu-arm-static". And while I could add extra logic to look this
>>>> up in the PATH, someone could run it from a completely different
>>>> location. Then I looked for a way to get the path of the current
>>>> executable but every platform has its own way of doing that and I
>>>> didn't want to add all these cases.
>>>>
>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1023306/finding-current-executables-path-without-proc-self-exe
>>>
>>> linux-user works only on linux.
>>> qemu uses glib-2.0, so you can use g_find_program_in_path().
>>
>> If QEMU was started via execle() to set the environment of the
>> executed process and that specified environment has a different
>> PATH, then g_find_program_in_path() will give the wrong answer.
>> Using AT_EXECFN (perhaps with a fallback to /proc/self/exe) seems
>> like a better approach to me.
>
> I agree, you can use getauxval(AT_EXECFN).
>
>>>> questions. Is it ok that I deleted part of the patch for my reply to
>>>> code review, or should I have replied inline without deleting
>>>
>>> Generally, it's better to not delete parts. So, someone tacking the mail
>>> thread at a moment can read the whole history in the last mail.
>>
>> I tend to happily delete parts and assume that readers have
>> access to the thread (via the archive or in their mail readers).
>> Not deleting bits makes it hard to read replies if there's
>> a conversation about a small part of a large patch.
>
> Yes, I do that also... :)
>
> Laurent
>