process: add execve

[ShogunPanda]

This PR adds a new process.execve method (absolutely willing to change the name if you want), which is a wrapper for the execve UNIX function.

The function will never return and will swap the current process with a new one.
All memory and system resources are automatically collected from execve, except for std{in,out,err}.

The primary use of this function is in shell scripts to allow to setup proper logics and then spawn another command.

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/startup

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/64381/

[ljharb]

What does it do on non-Unix systems?

[ShogunPanda]

@ljharb By non Unix we only mean Windows, isn't it? If that's the case, Windows also supports execve via _execve (doc here) so we should be good to go.

Once the CI ends I'll see which platform needs special assistance.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.03361% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 90.22%. Comparing base (fbe37d5) to head (61e2dfe).
Report is 98 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/node_process_methods.cc	67.24%	16 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #56496   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.21%   90.22%           
=======================================
  Files         630      629    -1     
  Lines      185213   185253   +40     
  Branches    36240    36230   -10     
=======================================
+ Hits       167096   167143   +47     
- Misses      11057    11068   +11     
+ Partials     7060     7042   -18     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/bootstrap/node.js	99.57% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
lib/internal/process/per_thread.js	99.45% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
src/node_errors.h	87.50% <ø> (ø)
src/node_process_methods.cc	87.80% <67.24%> (+1.54%)	⬆️

... and 39 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[targos]

On Windows:

D:\a\node\node\src\node_process_methods.cc(544,26): error C2065: 'F_GETFD': undeclared identifier [D:\a\node\node\libnode.vcxproj]
  (compiling source file '/src/node_process_methods.cc')
  
D:\a\node\node\src\node_process_methods.cc(544,17): error C3861: 'fcntl': identifier not found [D:\a\node\node\libnode.vcxproj]
  (compiling source file '/src/node_process_methods.cc')
  
D:\a\node\node\src\node_process_methods.cc(546,17): error C2065: 'FD_CLOEXEC': undeclared identifier [D:\a\node\node\libnode.vcxproj]
  (compiling source file '/src/node_process_methods.cc')
  
D:\a\node\node\src\node_process_methods.cc(547,16): error C2065: 'F_SETFD': undeclared identifier [D:\a\node\node\libnode.vcxproj]
  (compiling source file '/src/node_process_methods.cc')
  
D:\a\node\node\src\node_process_methods.cc(547,7): error C3861: 'fcntl': identifier not found [D:\a\node\node\libnode.vcxproj]
  (compiling source file '/src/node_process_methods.cc')

[targos]

To fix https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-custom-suites-freestyle/40120/

[mcollina]

lgtm

[ShogunPanda]

@ljharb I was totally wrong. Despite of naming and similar signatures, the function _execve only creates a new process without replacing the old one.

I'll disable this function on Windows.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/64387/

[addaleax]

If this is to be added, I'd absolutely recommend referring to it by a standard name such as execve(), or otherwise something that makes it clear that it spawns a new process.

This requires integration with the permissions API or is otherwise an immediate security hole.

Overall I'd recommend not adding this though, unless there's a concrete reason to believe that it fills a significant gap that the existing child_process API doesn't cover.

[ljharb]

Why would we want to add a function that can't work on all tier 1 platforms?

[jasnell]

Why would we want to add a function that can't work on all tier 1 platforms?

Well, we already have a number of such apis... process.getegid() for instance. There are actually quite a few already on process.

[ljharb]

Gotcha, i wasn't aware of that.

[jasnell]

I don't consider it to be ideal. I would have preferred a pattern like process.posix.getegid() similar to what we have with path.posix but these predate my involvement so they are what they are.

[jasnell]

+1 on @addaleax's alternative name suggestion. I'm fine with adding this so long as the cleanup logic/expectations are clearly documented.