[lkml]   [1996]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Glitch in sys_chroot()

Elliot Lee <> writes:

> > That's because the bug is in chroot(8), not chroot(2). chroot(2) is
> > supposed to change only the root directory; Linux's behavior is
> > correct.
> I don't think the bug is in chroot(8) necessarily (although
> POSIX tests don't include chroot AFAIK, the man pages on other systems
> don't specify that the PWD isn't changed (although they DO specify that
> /.. should point to /., a behaviour which Linux follows) therefore there
> is no real standard as to determine what makes it incorrect/correct.

Which other systems' manpages did you read? I found a few which did
not specify what the new cwd should be, but also several which said
that Linux's behavior was correct. For instance:

SunOS 4.1.1: "The current working directory is unaffected by this call."

SunOS 5.4 / Solaris 2.4: "The user's working directory is unaffected
by the chroot() and fchroot() functions."

IRIX 5.3: "The user's working directory is unaffected by the chroot
system call."

NetBSD 1.2: "It should be noted that chroot() has no effect on the
process's current directory."

Any questions?

Aaron M. Ucko ( | For Geek Code, PGP public key, and other info,
finger | "Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous.
Do not attempt it in your home." -- T. Pratchett & N. Gaiman, _Good Omens_

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.078 / U:2.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site