Re: Proposal: getexecpath(3)

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

also since this thread came back to life:

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 05:26:05PM -0500, Rob Whitlock wrote:
 > >> Also all argv[] strings can be modifiable by callee. pathname of the
 > >> execution (as passed to execve(2) or like) is not.
 > > 
 > > So?
 > > 
 > > (also, that's UB in C so the traditional Unix behavior is not by any
 > > means guaranteed, and on NetBSD you should be using setproctitle(3)
 > > for that instead anyhow)
 > 
 > What exactly is UB in C? Since execve(2) is not part of ANSI/ISO C,
 > I presume you might be talking about modification of the argv[]
 > strings? But that is explicitly allowed, and not UB.

Apparently I had it in my head that modifying argv strings isn't
allowed, and that allowing it was a sketchy Unix extension, but in
fact it is. (C&V: C99 5.1.2.2.1 #2)

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost