On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Ricardo Cantu <rica...@smartcsc.com>wrote:
> > Ricardo Cantu wrote: > > > > That's the problem with mod_fcgid right now with out the patch. > > argv[0] is different but mod_fcgid is not considering it different. It is > > lumping together by inode only and not paying attention to basename > (argv[0]). > > Which can be different when using symbolic links. > > The patch is so it can properly respect your statement. > > > Ah ha - I misread your statement. > > So, is the patch acceptable? > Doesn't the patch require the symlink to reside in the same directory as the actual executable in order to be effective? Wouldn't tracking the devno/inode of the link itself (apr_lstat() instead of apr_stat()) handle the issue more cleanly? It wouldn't work for hard links, but it should be a sufficient capability. As suggested in an earlier mail, why not always fully respect the symlink as distinct from other filesystem paths that resolve to the same executable code?
