Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall.

From: "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Cc: Mark Grosberg <mark@nolab.conman.org>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Combined fork-exec syscall.
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:57:08 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0304280951500.16637@chaos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jed6j67o4o.fsf@sykes.suse.de>

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com> writes:
>
> |> The following is a "simple popem()', about as minimal as
> |> you can get and have it work.
>
> Except it doesn't.
>
> |>     i = 0;
> |>     args[i++] = "/bin/sh";
> |>     args[i++] = "-c";
> |>     args[i++] = strtok((char *)command, " ");
> |>     for(; i< NR_ARGS; i++)
> |>         if((args[i] = strtok(NULL, " ")) == NULL)
> |>             break;

Yes it does.

>
> The command line must be a single argument for -c.
>

That is "implementation dependent", and not a rule. 'sh' may
take additional parameters after '-c'. In the case of Linux
which uses `bash` for `sh` this can be helpful since when
bash is envoked with ths '-c' argument, $0 becomes the next
parameter, instead if the file-name, and $1 becomes the second, etc.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.