Re: execv bug???
Re: execv bug???
- Subject: Re: execv bug???
- From: email@hidden (Peter Seebach)
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:59:57 -0600
In message <email@hidden>, Steve writes:
>This was not to be a debate on what is the best MTA. I respectfully
>disagree on all counts. Postfix will not do half of the things we use
>qmail for. But no matter, not the point. I've used and managed both. The
>question is about execv.
At least one count is the claim that qmail is unmaintained. I would be
shocked if this were not still true.
>I disagree, your test is not the same.
What distinction do you think matters? I have chdir'd to a directory and
called execv with a non-absolute path.
>Recall, qmail is the second most deployed MTA ,and, the code works on
>all platforms, including Tiger as is.
I am aware of a number of patches that are being distributed to make the
code even compile on some platforms.
>The code appears correct.
Like much djb code, it appears correct, but it is gratuitously clever.
>The
>extra code shows it to be in the right directory, as it does when
>rec-compiled on our Tiger servers. So, my conclusion is different.
>Anyone else? Can we stick to the topic?
Be less prickly.
I performed a trivial test of the exact scenario described -- chdir to a
directory, call execv with a non-absolute path. It worked. This suggests
that execv is certainly capable of working with non-absolute paths. I can't
prove that it will work with every possible non-absolute path, from every
possible directory, but it seems clear that it is working with at least one
non-absolute path, from at least one directory.
-s
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden