Paolo Zeppegno wrote, quoting Linus from 1998:
> > The old user land implementation had also the side effect that if a
> > directory
> > was not readable meant that getcwd would not give a pathname back. Now
> > I think the syscall will never fail. Is this kosher for posix?
>
> We can make it fail if we want to. I don't think we want to, and I don't
> think POSIX says anything about it, but let's just do it and see what
> people think...
>
> Linus
I think the behaviour we have now is fine. If you really want to hide
processes in a subdirectory, that's what chroot is for.
But if you do need that behaviour changed, remember to restrict access
to all the symbolic links in /proc too. Especially /proc/self/cwd.
enjoy,
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:11 EST