[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [PATCH] fexecve
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:27:27PM +0000, Julian Yon wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:45:02 +0000
> David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52:30PM +0000, Julian Yon wrote:
> > >
> > > What does this gain over passing a filename around? (NB. I'm not
> > > claiming that's an entirely safe model either, but it's already
> > > possible).
> > You don't need the executable image inside the chroot.
> I don't believe that's intended to be possible, and if it is, I'm not
> sure it's a gain.
I actually think it might be, if it didn't run the risk of blowing up
code that wasn't written to expect it.
If we're going to commit this syscall at all, I think it should be
accompanied by a new socket option for unix domain sockets, which
defaults to "off", but if explicitly set to "on", allows file descriptors
passed across the socket to be used for exec.
Main Index |
Thread Index |