Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux.

• Next message: Romain Lievin: "Re: why the new config process is a *big* step backwards"
• Previous message: Nico Schottelius: "Re: [2.5.56] (partial known) bugs/compile errors"
• In reply to: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux."
• Next in thread: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux."
• Reply: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    Hi Richard :)

> > libc, but I think that is more on the kernel side, that's why I ask
> Last time I checked argv[0] was 512 bytes. Many daemons overwrite
> it with no problem.

    Any header where I can see the length for argv[0] or is this some
kind of unoficial standard? Just doing strcpy seems dangerous to me
(you can read 'paranoid'...).

    Thanks a lot for your answer, Richard :)
    Raśl
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Romain Lievin: "Re: why the new config process is a *big* step backwards"
• Previous message: Nico Schottelius: "Re: [2.5.56] (partial known) bugs/compile errors"
• In reply to: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux."
• Next in thread: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux."
• Reply: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Changing argv[0] under Linux."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:51 EST