On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:17:25PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote: >> >> On the other hand if we generalize improvements of fchdir(2) and fchroot(2) >> (I mean EPERM if the current working directory is not at or under the new >> root directory), that is reimplement them with a help of kauth(9) we >> will be able to do the same for fexecve(2). > > I don't think that's necessarily the case (we've discussed why earlier > in this terribly fragmented thread).
I've reread the whole thread but I don't understand how fch* and fexec* differ. As far as I can see all they cause the same sort of problems. So, a solution should be the same for all of them.
