Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2)
From: Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Date: 2015-01-09 21:23:06
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml, sparclinux
Rich Felker [off-list ref] writes:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 08:56:26PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:48:15PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:quoted
I think this is a case that needs to be fixed, though it's hard. The normal correct usage for fexecve is to always pass an O_CLOEXEC file descriptor, and the caller can't really be expected to know whether the file is a script or not. We discussed workarounds before and one idea I proposed was having fexecve provide a "one open only" magic symlink in /proc/self/ to pass to the interpreter. It would behave like an O_PATH file descriptor magic symlink in /proc/self/fd, but would automatically cease to exist on the first open (at which point the interpreter would have a real O_RDONLY file descriptor for the underlying file).For fsck sake, folks, if you have bloody /proc, you don't need that shite at all! Just do execve on /proc/self/fd/n, and be done with that. The sole excuse for merging that thing in the first place had been "would anybody think of children^Wsclerotic^Whardened environments where they have no /proc at all".That doesn't work. With O_CLOEXEC, /proc/self/fd/n is already gone at the time the interpreter runs, whether you're using fexecveat or execve with "/proc/self/fd/n" to implement POSIX fexecve(). That's the problem. This breaks the intended idiom for fexecve.
O_CLOEXEC with a #! intepreter can not work. If the file descriptor is closed a #! interpreter can not open it. So I don't know why or how you want that to work but it is nonsense. This certainly does not break the intended usage for execveat. Eric