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