On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:55:52AM +0100, Meredydd Luff wrote: > Al (in particular): I've reworked this on top of your generic > execve() changes, as well as incorporating feedback from HPA. > Could you take another look please (and merge if all is well)? > > [v3: now rebased onto signal.git#execve2, and takes a flags > parameter which understands AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW; all thanks to > feedback from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/1/418] > > HPA is already on record calling for an execveat() which also does > fexecve()'s job: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/11/556. > And the current glibc hack for fexecve() is already causing problems > in the wild. Eg: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=241609, > https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/27/123, and as recounted at > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=514043.
Please, declare open_execat(), leaving open_exec() as it is (i.e. a trivial wrapper for open_execat()). Would cut down on the patch footprint a bit... > + bprm->filename = filename ?: > + (const char *) file->f_path.dentry->d_name.name; Absolutely not. If nothing else, ->d_name can change on rename() *and* get underlying memory freed. At zero notice. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
