Re: [PATCH signal#execve2] syscalls,x86: Add execveat() system call(v3)

[Al Viro]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/