Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:31:00 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | 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?
|  |