On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:28:10 -0400 James Carlson wrote: > John Plocher writes: > > This implies that the fix needs to be in libcmd and not in ksh93
> It can't be in libcmd, because those external programs themselves will > link to libcmd to get the implementation there. You'd just recurse > forever. > In order for this to work, either (A) all applications using libcmd > must become smart enough to know when to do exec() instead or (B) no > application other than a /usr/bin/* utility implemented by way of > libcmd should ever link against libcmd. does this mean that the sh implementation makes some kind of contract on what system calls it will make? e.g., if chmod(1) requires pfexec, then can the sh implementation make a call to chmod(2) under any circumstances? -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
