4 ms·
No, it was the dynamic loader that did the sanitizing. Mark said that he thought of Perl's sanitizing, and had ruled it out, and then explicitly said it was the
by eridius 10y ago
No, it was the dynamic loader that did the sanitizing. Mark said that he thought of Perl's sanitizing, and had ruled it out, and then explicitly said it was the dynamic loader that did the sanitizing in this case.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoThanks for the correction; fixed. I misremembered that bit of the yak-shaving adventure when I went to write my comment. The conclusion still holds, though: I don't think special-casing particular capabilities makes sense. And in the case of the dynamic linker, it doesn't actually have that information available; it relies on the AT_SECURE bit set in the process's "auxiliary vector" (see "man getauxval"), which the kernel sets when the process has any privilege its caller didn't have.