[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: fexecve, round 2
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 06:16:00PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > This appears to contradict either the description of O_EXEC in the
> > standard, or the standard's rationale for adding fexecve(). The
> > standard says O_EXEC causes the file to be open for execution "only".
> > In other words, O_EXEC means you can't read nor write the file. Now
> > the rationale for fexecve() doesn't hold, since you cannot read from
> > the fd, then exec from it without a reopen.
> > Further, requiring O_EXEC would seem to directly contravene the
> > standard's language about fexecve()'s behavior.
> The standard is clearly wrong on a number of points and doesn't match
> the historical design and behavior of Unix. Let's either implement
> something correct, or not implement it at all.
Also it seems that the specification of O_SEARCH (and I think the
implementation we just got, too) is flawed in the same way - it is
performing access checks at use time instead of at open time.
(Also the implementation we just got seems to be missing any access
check at open time -- this seems entirely wrong.)
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |