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

[Peter Maydell]

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.

>> 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.

thanks
-- PMM