Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!cbosgd!osu-cis!tut!karl From: karl@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: POSIX execlfd and execvfd proposal Message-ID: <2470@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: Mon, 30-Nov-87 20:58:33 EST Article-I.D.: tut.2470 Posted: Mon Nov 30 20:58:33 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Dec-87 00:03:54 EST References: <18491@linus.UUCP> Reply-To: karl@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: OSU Lines: 17 ramsdell@linus.UUCP writes: Synopsis execlfd like execl, execvfd like execv Description These exec's replace the current process with a new image. Before replacing the image, but after determining the identity of the file to be exec'ed, they open the binary image and place the file descriptor in an external int called "boot_fd". The exec fails if the open fails. This sounds ill-advised to me. On the one hand, it forces the consumption of yet another file descriptor. But more importantly, it confuses the meaning of the permissions r-xr-xr-x and --x--x--x. What do you give the program in boot_fd, if permissions are the latter, deliberately preventing the reading of the program? -- Karl