Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Glitch in sys_chroot() | From | (Aaron M. Ucko) | Date | 14 Nov 1996 20:42:38 -0500 |
| |
Elliot Lee <sopwith@cuc.edu> 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 (amu@mit.edu) | For Geek Code, PGP public key, and other info, finger amu@monk.mit.edu. | "Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home." -- T. Pratchett & N. Gaiman, _Good Omens_
|  |