tech-security archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: [PATCH] fexecve

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:34:29 +0000
David Laight <> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:14:18PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > 
> > Frankly, I still don't see the point why something would want to
> > use it.
> How about running a staticly linked executable inside a chroot without
> needed the executable itself to do the chroot.

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


3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) <>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index