From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 man-pages 5/5] execveat.2: initial man page for execveat(2) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 21:50:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20150109215042.GM22149@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> <20150109204815.GR4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150109205626.GK22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150109205926.GT4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20150109210941.GL22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150109212852.GU4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:60961 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750851AbbAIVux (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2015 16:50:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150109212852.GU4574@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rich Felker Cc: David Drysdale , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andy Lutomirski , Meredydd Luff , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Thomas Gleixner , Stephen Rothwell , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Kees Cook , Arnd Bergmann , Christoph Hellwig , X86 ML , linux-arch , Linux API , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > The "magic open-once magic symlink" approach is really the cleanest > solution I can find. In the case where the interpreter does not open > the script, nothing terribly bad happens; the magic symlink just > sticks around until _exit or exec. In the case where the interpreter > opens it more than once, you get a failure, but as far as I know > existing interpreters don't do this, and it's arguably bad design. In > any case it's a caught error. You know what's cleaner than that? git revert 27d6ec7ad It has just been merged; until 3.19 it's fair game for removal. And yes, I should've NAKed the damn thing loud and clear, rather than asking questions back then, getting no answers and letting it slip. Mea culpa. Back then the procfs-free environments had been pushed as a serious argument in favour of merging the damn thing. Now you guys turn around and say that we not only need procfs mounted, we need a yet-to-be-added kludge in there to cope with the actual intended uses.