lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2)
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:20:04PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 08:56:26PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:48:15PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> > 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.

The why is simple: fexecve always expects a close-on-exec file
descriptor. Otherwise the program being executed would need to take a
special option telling it to close the spurious fd it inherits. Most
programs don't have such an option, and there's no way to do it
without application-specific knowledge.

The how is difficult, but it can be done.

Rich


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-09 22:41    [W:0.098 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site