Re: [PATCH] fexecve

[David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost>]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:52:30PM +0000, Julian Yon wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:34:29 +0000
> David Laight <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:14:18PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > 
> > > Frankly, I still don't see the point why something would want to
> > > use it.
> > 
> > How about running a staticly linked executable inside a chroot without
> > needed the executable itself to do the chroot.
> 
> What does this gain over passing a filename around? (NB. I'm not
> claiming that's an entirely safe model either, but it's already
> possible).

You don't need the executable image inside the chroot.

        David

-- 
David Laight: david%l8s.co.uk@localhost