From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for
 execveat(2)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 21:09:41 +0000
Message-ID: <20150109210941.GL22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1416830039-21952-1-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com>
 <1416830039-21952-6-git-send-email-drysdale@google.com>
 <54AFF813.7050604@gmail.com>
 <20150109161302.GQ4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAHse=S88Jy5ZKM_VY5onfvxX7dTMngnxuHfuLeSuzvKvQNP19A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150109204815.GR4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20150109205626.GK22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20150109205926.GT4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150109205926.GT4574-C3MtFaGISjmo6RMmaWD+6Sb1p8zYI1N1@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Rich Felker <dalias-/miJ2pyFWUyWIDz0JBNUog@public.gmane.org>
Cc: David Drysdale <drysdale-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org>, Meredydd Luff <meredydd-zPN50pYk8eUaUu29zAJCuw@public.gmane.org>, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>, David Miller <davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, Kees Cook <keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>, X86 ML <x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Linux API <linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, sparclinux-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 03:59:26PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:

> > 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.

Just what will your magical symlink do in case when the file is opened,
unlinked and marked O_CLOEXEC?  When should actual freeing of disk blocks,
etc. happen?  And no, you can't assume that interpreter will open the
damn thing even once - there's nothing to oblige it to do so.

Al, more and more tempted to ask reverting the whole thing - this hardcoded
/dev/fd/... (in fs/exec.c, no less) is disgraceful enough, but threats of
even more revolting kludges in the name of "intended idiom for fexecve"...