From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263700AbTDGWFs (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:05:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263690AbTDGWFs (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:05:48 -0400 Received: from as6-4-8.rny.s.bonet.se ([217.215.27.171]:27654 "EHLO pc2.dolda2000.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263700AbTDGWFq convert rfc822-to-8bit (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:05:46 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Fredrik Tolf To: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [PATCH] new syscall: flink Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:17:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200304072255.47254.fredrik@dolda2000.cjb.net> <3E91F0FD.1040507@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3E91F0FD.1040507@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200304080017.21799.fredrik@dolda2000.cjb.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 07 April 2003 23:43, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Fredrik Tolf wrote: > > Anyway, while we're on the subject, is it just me who would like to see a > > fexec() call? > > If you'd run an up-to-date system (e.g., RHL9) you'd have fexecve() > already. Am I right if I guess that this is the execve("/proc/self/fd/?") solution? I'm asking since I'm running 2.4.20 right now and I do not have such a syscall. I'm not sure if I truly like the idea of having to rely on the existence of the proc fs, especially not since there is the chroot call. fexecve would also be a nice thing just because of that, since it allows you to keep a file descriptor over a chroot away from any /proc accessibility and then exec it. For that reason, a fexec call could increase security in certain areas. If I've missed the introduction of a fexecve syscall, I'm sorry for wasting your time. Fredrik Tolf