From owner-freebsd-arch  Fri Jun  9  5:16:11 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from lor.watermarkgroup.com (lor.watermarkgroup.com [207.202.73.33])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E3137B544
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri,  9 Jun 2000 05:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com)
Received: (from luoqi@localhost)
	by lor.watermarkgroup.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e59CG7I07757;
	Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>
Message-Id: <200006091216.e59CG7I07757@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
To: dfr@nlsystems.com, dillon@apollo.backplane.com
Subject: Re: Syscalls and execve
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>     Why not have the new exec()'d process, when it gets the cpu in supervisor
>     mode, clear the registers in supervisor mode before returning
>     to user mode?  e.g. near the end of kern/kern_exec.c's execve().
>     (or somewhere similar).  Then at least the 'garbage' will be more 
>     like what you see on return from a syscall rather then something 
>     inherited from another process.
> 
Here the current process *is* the process calling exec() (unlike fork()), so 
why not just zero those registers in setregs()?

-lq


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message