This punts the awkward-to-enforce "MUST be available at the given path
inside of the rootfs" to the kernel, which will do a much better job
of enforcing that constraint than runtime code or a static validator.
It also punts most of the semantics to POSIX, which does a better job
than we'll do at specifying this. The extension is necessary because
POSIX allows argv to be empty. In the DESCRIPTION:
The argument arg0 should point to a filename that is associated with
the process being started by one of the exec functions.
And in RATIONALE:
Early proposals required that the value of argc passed to main() be
"one or greater". This was driven by the same requirement in drafts
of the ISO C standard. In fact, historical implementations have
passed a value of zero when no arguments are supplied to the caller
of the exec functions. This requirement was removed from the ISO C
standard and subsequently removed from this volume of IEEE Std
1003.1-2001 as well. The wording, in particular the use of the word
should, requires a Strictly Conforming POSIX Application to pass at
least one argument to the exec function, thus guaranteeing that argc
be one or greater when invoked by such an application. In fact,
this is good practice, since many existing applications reference
argv[0] without first checking the value of argc.
But with an empty 'args' we will have no process to call (since
process lacks an explicit 'file' analog).
I chose the 2001/2004 POSIX spec for consistency with the existing
reference (which landed in 7ac41c6, config.md: reformat into a
standard style, 2015-06-30, which did not motivate it's use of an
older standard). For 2001 vs. 2004, [1] has:
Abstract: The 2004 edition incorporates Technical Corrigendum Number
1 and Technical Corrigendum 2 addressing problems discovered since
the approval of the 2001 edition. These are mainly due to resolving
integration issues raised by the merger of the Base documents.
and the text in the linked pages uses "IEEE Std 1003.1-2001" for
internal linking.
Rob Dolin had suggested "platform-appropriate" wording [2], but it
seems like Visual Studio 2015 supports execvp [3], and providing an
explicit "platform-appropriate" wiggle seems like it's adding useless
complication.
[1]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/mindex.html
[2]: http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opencontainers/2016/opencontainers.2016-05-18-17.01.log.html#l-54
[3]: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3xw6zy53.aspx
Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>