On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 18:13:44 +0100 Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > in other words, the changes that you see CMD_ARGS[0] == NULL for > > execveat() seem higher than for path-based exec. > > > > To counter that we should probably at least update the execveat() > > manpage with a recommendation what CMD_ARGS[0] should be set to if it > > isn't allowed to be set to NULL anymore. This is why was asking what > > argv[0] is supposed to be if the binary doesn't take any arguments. > > Sent a fix to our fstests now replacing the argv[0] as NULL with "". As we hit this check so quickly, I'm thinking that Ariadne's patch "fs/exec: require argv[0] presence in do_execveat_common()" (which added the check) isn't something we'll be able to merge into mainline?
