Re: fexecve, round 3

[Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:58:01PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > Yes, I agree there is no security hazard introduced: if help from a
> > process outside the chroot is assumed, there are already many ways to
> > cirumvent chroot security.
>
> And I strongly disagree.  We've discussed this at painful length in
> the earlier threads on this topic and I don't really, at this time,
> want to restate the entire discussion; nor do I think I should need to.

Then please point me to the message that addresses the objection above.
I did not meant to shortcut your contribution to the discussion, I just
must have missed it in the long threads, 

> I think this is an unfortunate effect of the way we are discussing
> this ("round 1", "round 2", "round 3", each as a separate thread

The idea is to try summing up the previous discussions. I may 
sometimes fail at this task, but the intent is to make the rthing more
readable.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
manu%netbsd.org@localhost