Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

On 02/06/10 01:22, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I am not convinced that this is worth doing.  Any name from anywhere is
> always just a guess at what might be the right file name.  There will
> always be cases where you can't manage to guess it.  It is only a guess for
> convenience when not secure, after all.  With fexecve, there isn't even any
> such file name to pass as a better guess than something derived from argv[0].

This is a big problem for the GLib's make check, since at that point the tests
are not the tests but libtool shell scripts that check for $0 before calling the
real binaries, and they have /dev/fd/N in $0 which makes them fail. There is
probably other stuff for which this is problematic, although I agree this is not
very common.

You're right for fexecve, but that's not different from Linux (I've just checked
and they pass /proc/self/fd/N). I think Marcus said on IRC that there was a
chance this could be fixed, but even if I didn't understood him right and
there's not, I think this is still an improvement over the status quo.

Cheers,
Emilio