Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2)

[Eric W. Biederman]

Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I'm not proposing code because I'm a libc developer not a kernel
> developer. I know what's needed for userspace to provide a conforming
> fexecve to applications, not how to implement that on the kernel side,
> although I'm trying to provide constructive ideas. The hostility is
> really not necessary.

Conforming to what?

The open group fexecve says nothing about requiring a file descriptor
passed to fexecve to have O_CLOEXEC.

Further looking at open group specification of exec it seems to indicate
the preferred way to handle this is for the kernel to return O_NOEXEC
and then libc gets to figure out how to run the shell script.  Is that
the kind of ``conforming'' implementation you are looking for?

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/