[issue23459] Linux: expose the new execveat() syscall
R. David Murray
report at bugs.python.org
Mon May 30 19:57:43 EDT 2016
R. David Murray added the comment:
You can currently call os.execve with a file pointer. How is that different from adding an execveat with AS_EMPTY_PATH, functionally? I think we don't need to add this syscall, because it is intended to allow more robust implementation of fexecve, and we are already effectvely exposing fexecve. We should be able to assume that glibc will switch to using execveat under the hood, and not worry about it ourselves. If that's not true, then we can revisit this.
----------
nosy: +r.david.murray
_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue23459>
_______________________________________
More information about the Python-bugs-list
mailing list