re: [PATCH] fexecve

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@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.

in other words:  any executable visible on the system can be make
present inside the chroot.


i don't like this feature and would rather that netbsd did not
implement it.


.mrg.