>
> Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu> writes:
>
> > > That's because the bug is in chroot(8), not chroot(2). chroot(2) is
> > > supposed to change only the root directory; Linux's behavior is
> > > correct.
> >
> > I don't think the bug is in chroot(8) necessarily (although
> >
> > POSIX tests don't include chroot AFAIK, the man pages on other systems
> > don't specify that the PWD isn't changed (although they DO specify that
> > /.. should point to /., a behaviour which Linux follows) therefore there
> > is no real standard as to determine what makes it incorrect/correct.
>
> Which other systems' manpages did you read? I found a few which did
> not specify what the new cwd should be, but also several which said
> that Linux's behavior was correct. For instance:
>
> SunOS 4.1.1: "The current working directory is unaffected by this call."
>
> SunOS 5.4 / Solaris 2.4: "The user's working directory is unaffected
> by the chroot() and fchroot() functions."
>
> IRIX 5.3: "The user's working directory is unaffected by the chroot
> system call."
>
> NetBSD 1.2: "It should be noted that chroot() has no effect on the
> process's current directory."
>
> Any questions?
Beg pardon, you are correct. I read the SunOS & Solaris pages (not
thoroughly enough).
I still think that Linux should do the chdir() before the chroot(). If you
can provide a reason why - besides "because that's the way it has been
done" - I'd say you have a valid point. Until then I remain unconvinced,
because of the possible security concerns from lax programming.
In other words, are there any solid reasons other than vague tradition why
it shouldn't be done?
Thanks,
-- Elliot