Review request for 5049299

[Michael McMahon]

Martin Buchholz wrote:
>  
>
>
>     Also, I don't follow why we need the
>      execve_as_traditional_shell_script()
>     function. Can you explain the reason for that?
>
>
> I think my comment for that function explains it fairly well.
>
> /**
>  * Exec FILE as a traditional Bourne shell script (i.e. one without #!).
>  * If we could do it over again, we would probably not support such an 
> ancient
>  * misfeature, but compatibility wins over sanity.  The original 
> support for
>  * this was imported accidentally from execvp().
>  */
>
Actually, I was really wondering why is this code needed now?
What has it to do with the specifics of converting fork()+exec()
to clone()+exec()

Thanks,
Michael.
> The tests I added also pass on the older implementation,
> so execve_as_traditional_shell_script() prevents a regression.
> We always supported "traditional shell scripts" - we just didn't know it.
>
> ---
>
> I updated the public version of the patch at:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/clone-exec 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Emartin/clone-exec>
>
> Martin
>
>  
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Michael.
>
>     Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
>         Michael,
>
>         I think the best way to handle the coordination is in two steps.
>         I'd like to get my Linux-clone changes in first (you should
>         review,
>         I will commit)
>         and then we switch hats and I will review your Solaris changes.
>         It seems best to do this in two steps: to better place blame when
>         it breaks (this is very tricky stuff to get right).
>         If you agree, please review my posted changes.
>
>         Aside: Instead of griping about the missing execvpe,
>         I filed a bug against glibc, and was surprised to find
>         that Ulrich Drepper had implemented it a couple of days later.
>         It will probably be in glibc-2.11.  Perhaps in 5 years we can
>         use it ourselves...).  Thanks, Uli!
>
>         Martin
>
>         On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 07:29, Michael McMahon
>         <Michael.McMahon at sun.com <mailto:Michael.McMahon at sun.com>
>         <mailto:Michael.McMahon at sun.com
>         <mailto:Michael.McMahon at sun.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Martin,
>
>            I had done something similar with clone & exec for Linux, but
>            hadn't got round to testing it.
>            So, it seems reasonable to take yours. Do you want to send
>         me your
>            updated versions of
>            process_md.c and the test? I can take care of the merge
>         with the
>            Solaris code.
>
>
>
>