[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130106163100.GI4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:31:00 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Meredydd Luff <meredydd@...atehouse.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH signal#execve2] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call
(v3)
OK, now that sys_execve() unification has settled down, let's get back
to this one. The real problem is what you are doing with bprm->filename
and bprm->interp; blind use of ->d_name is completely wrong.
For what it's worth, how should it work for e.g. shell scripts? That's
the main user of bprm->{filename,interp}, after all - other places are
either seriously exotic or are just using it for printks.
For shell scripts, however, these guys are really used - we have the original
argv[0] removed and <shell name> <optional argument> <filename> pushed in
its place.
How will it work with execveat()? If we have procfs in place, we can
cook an equivalent pathname (/proc/self/fd/<n>/<relative part of pathname>),
but then why not do just that in userland and be done with that?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists