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

[David Drysdale]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>
>> The "magic open-once magic symlink" approach is really the cleanest
>> solution I can find. In the case where the interpreter does not open
>> the script, nothing terribly bad happens; the magic symlink just
>> sticks around until _exit or exec. In the case where the interpreter
>> opens it more than once, you get a failure, but as far as I know
>> existing interpreters don't do this, and it's arguably bad design. In
>> any case it's a caught error.
>
> You know what's cleaner than that?  git revert 27d6ec7ad
> It has just been merged; until 3.19 it's fair game for removal.
>
> And yes, I should've NAKed the damn thing loud and clear, rather than
> asking questions back then, getting no answers and letting it slip.
> Mea culpa.

Al, I'm sorry if I missed a question or concern of yours back in
October -- I certainly didn't intend to (that would be foolish indeed!).

[I thought the main open question was whether a dupfs
implementation would help with /dev/fd/ and /proc/ semantics, but I
had the (possibly incorrect) understanding that that was somewhat
orthogonal to the execveat implementation.]

Are there any changes/fixes/refactorings that I could do (especially
within the 3.19 timeframe) that would help mollify at all?

> Back then the procfs-free environments had been pushed as a serious argument
> in favour of merging the damn thing.  Now you guys turn around and say that
> we not only need procfs mounted, we need a yet-to-be-added kludge in there
> to cope with the actual intended uses.

Not me!
--
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/