Otto Moerbeek writes:
> The mechanism is in the docs as well, not only in the code. You

You are of course correct, and OpenBSD has some of the best documentation
I've ever seen, but I've spent so long in linux land that whenever I'm
met with the question of how *exactly* something works, I just go straight
to the source. Source code can't lie (trusting trust notwithstanding).

> ignored my post about the symlink being confusing and error prone
> since the time it is read (before or after the chroot) is program
> dependent. It might even depend on options gives to a program when the
> first malloc call happens, making it even more unclear which symlink
> is being used.  Add the complexity with respect to unveil and pledge
> and it is clear why we replaced it. 

And I'm grateful. Having options - and such low-level options at
that! - encoded in such a weird way has always felt extremely
unopenbsd-like. This is another step toward sanity.

Simplicity! Thank you, devs.


Reply via email to